Detecting design or intent in nature

[BlackMason]

You called me a dick. I've matured over the past year so I'll let that slide.

Rhythm, you claimed that I implied nipples are a female characteristic. I said I did no such thing and you did not yield. Why? In order to have a progressive discussion is it not wise to have consensus? Law of contract works that way. If it can be established that the two contracting parties did not have consensus at the time of contracting, the judge can set aside the contract rendering it null and void. Yet you persisted when I told that is not what I meant.

Your logic is broken and I will explain: Humans that are blind have eyes and so do humans that can see. Because humans that are blind have no use for their eyes, they are a characteristic of seeing humans. This is not true because eyes are a characteristic of HUMANS blind or not blind. By your logic you say that it is implied that eyes are a characteristic of vision enabled humans and that's pathetic. This is why I accused you of being intellectually dishonest because you can't have a brain and think that I implied nipples to be a female characteristic simply because they work. That's asinine!

I concede that my argument is not valid. However that does not mean that it does not have any use. You seem to not be familiar with inductive reasoning so I'll include this post from another thread:

Interesting. Can you elaborate on what this distinction means in our case here? I don't see how your use of these words adds anything except needlessly simplistic jargon to our understanding of the issue.

Yeah sure. I think it's of fundamental importance to actually understand what science is if you're going to talk about it. First, science is tentative. This means that if we find new information in the future it could turn our previous conclusions on their head. Science does not make absolute claims. Most of the arguments that science makes are actually invalid. But what they lack in validity they more than make up for in inductive strength. What is this inductive reasoning you ask? Read on if you're interested

Inductive reasoning and validity:
The best way to explain inductive reasoning is by way of example:

1) Jane fell off a building.
C) Jane is dead

The premise "Jane fell off a building" is strong enough for us to accept the conclusion that "Jane is dead". But watch this:

1) Jane fell off a building
2) She landed in a swimming pool
C) Jane is dead

Notice that the inclusion of the second premise makes us believe the conclusion less than in the first example. This notion of changing our willingness to accept the conclusion given the premises is known as inductive strength.

Now moving on to validity. An argument is valid if the premises logically entail the conclusion. For example in the first argument with only one premise, falling off a building does not entail death. Perhaps Jane fell off the first floor and broke her arm. She still fell off the building but that does not necessitate death. So the argument is actually invalid. This is the same for the second argument with the swimming component added.

Unlike science, mathematics uses DEDUCTIVE reasoning. This means that if you construct your proof correctly your conclusion will ALWAYS be right no matter what. It doesn't matter if the pope becomes black or new discoveries come into play. If you constructed your proof correctly your conclusion will always be right! This is the power of maths!

Next I want to deal with a syllogism. You asked me before if I know what would constitute a purpose in nature for me to be able to claim that it does not have purpose. Your post indicates to me that you don't really understand what a syllogism is by asking that question. When constructing a disjunctive syllogism it is not necessary for me to know the other thing so long as a can prove another which excludes the possibility of the undefined. This is how courts the world over work. More on that later.

My disjunctive syllogism is:

1) P or Q
2) P
c) Therefore -not Q

Courts use a similar syllogism methodology because the focus in ONLY on guilt. They do not address the question of innocence. Not addressing the issue of innocence is tantamount to me not needing to define what would constitute a purpose. Capisce?

Now let me deal what a reductio ad absurdum is. This is also linked to my overall argument. The first step in a reductio is to hold that a certain statement is true. The next step is showing why it is not feasible with examples that lead to the conclusion that the original statement cannot be true. This is proof by contradiction and is even used in mathematics.

My original argument on extinction and this one on nipples show that the idea of nature being goal oriented is unfeasible. Sorry bro, but I'm taking this one.

Oh and by the way I don't need any teaching on necessary and sufficient conditions. The relevance of that discussion is deeply in question.:
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...se+problem

---

Rhythm, you're intellectually dishonest and that's where I lose interest.

And. . . there it is. The intellectual mating call of the soundly-defeated debater.

Bench players talking like starters I hate it. Wow you must feel real proud of yourself.