(February 6, 2015 at 2:16 pm)Heywood Wrote:(February 6, 2015 at 2:14 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: So...
You define 'evolutionary systems' your way, then claim biological evolution fits your definition because it has SOME of the same features, and purposely ignore all that ways it doesn't fit your definition.
What was your point again?
biological evolution has ALL the features of my definition it therefore belongs in the set of things I am talking about.
But you stated the goal of your argument earlier in this thread:
(January 2, 2015 at 4:06 pm)Heywood Wrote: I see the hand of God in nature. Every evolutionary system I have observed, whose origins are known to me, requires the existence of intelligence. Therefore I find it reasonable to conclude that the evolutionary system which produced me also required the existence of intelligence.
Your definition of evolution is insufficient for biological evolution and therefore does not support 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.