(February 6, 2015 at 6:24 pm)Heywood Wrote: My argument only addresses the elements of the set I have defined. It does not reference any other set or subset. You are making a straw man argument by pretending the set I am talking about is defined by your definition and not mine. It does nobody any good for you to refute fantasy arguments instead of the one laid before you.
Then you are making a straw man of biological evolution by leaving out the elements that differentiate if from the other things that fit your set.
Quote:The definition I am using to define the set I am drawing conclusions about is very reasonable.
How can it be reasonable when it leave out the very elements that define biological evolution?
Wow! How can you not see this simple point?
Quote:I am talking about the set of all systems which contain all these elements: Replication, Heritable traits, Change, and Selection.. Can you give one example of a system which contains these elements which is known to come into existence without intellect? Present real observations please.....not professions of what you believe as a matter of faith.
This is a meaningless challenge until you are willing to include the elements that define biological evolution in your set.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
