RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 10:12 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 10:25 pm by Heywood.)
(February 6, 2015 at 9:57 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(February 6, 2015 at 9:19 pm)Heywood Wrote: That is not true of all polygons. The interior angles of some polygons do add up to 180 degrees.
Okay, so not regular polygons then.
Fine. All non-triangle polygons do not have three sides, or three angles.
Now all you are doing is changing the challenge. How about you go back to working on the original challenge? Or just concede.....its not that big of a deal. Its not like I am asking you to put "moron" next to your name.
(February 6, 2015 at 9:59 pm)Chas Wrote: Dead fucking wrong. We are saying that what you demonstrate about the rectangles cannot be applied to the triangles.
You still don't understand sets. Your Heywood set has two disjoint subsets and you keep talking about only one of them and claiming it must apply to the other.......You are only drawing conclusions about the subset that is known to be created and trying to apply it the the subset of the not know to be created.
You refutation is equivalent to just saying biological evolution doesn't belong in the set I have defined. The reason you just don't come out and say this is because it is obviously untrue. Instead you try to hide the falseness of your refutation with convolution. Convolution is not compelling...except maybe to the weak minded who already conclude what they assume.
