RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 7, 2015 at 6:35 am
(This post was last modified: February 7, 2015 at 6:37 am by Chas.)
(February 6, 2015 at 10:12 pm)Heywood Wrote:(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.
Is biological evolution known to have been created by intellect? No.
It therefore cannot belong to the set of things known to have been created by intellect.
But that is not the only thing wrong with your argument.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
