Detecting design or intent in nature

[bennyboy]

oic more semantics. Fine.

"All polygons" is a Big Set, by your definition of the workings of logic. It's a Big Set which includes squares. Triangles do not include squares. Therefore something that is true of the set of all polygons is not true of triangles. Except, that is, in Heywood Land, where every triangle is proof that all polygons are triangles.

There is no semantics. Anything that is true of all polygons will be true of all triangles. Your daughter could probably figure this out. To be honest, I got a chuckle that you seriously took up the challenge. I hope you didn't waste too much time on it.

I find it strange that when faced with the same way in which you abuse set theory, you are so quick to discard it. I'd expect you to say, "Yeah, that makes total sense. That's exactly what I keep doing."

That you aren't saying that means I now have evidence that you do not actually think that logic works that way, but that you are willfully abusing logic in order to hide yourself from the truth. Sand would be easier, but that's fine by me.

---

What about photon triangles? Are they a subset of evolving polygon cars?

Don't you know that in the Big Set of "things," every photon is evidence that everything else is also a photon? And since everything is identical, All is One, and the All is Allah, who is the alpha and the omega? I mean it's obvious. Grrrr, you are so reistant to logic.

---

And since what's true of all polygons is true of all triangles, what's true of all triangles is true of all polygons. Don't you guys get it yet?

YES! Finally someone accepts the truth.