Detecting design or intent in nature

[downbeatplumb]

There is no known mechanism whereby intellect can spontaneously spring into being, so evolution cannot pre date intellect because the only way intellect is known to exist is by a process of evolution.

Heywoods "argument" puts the cart before the horse.

We know evolutionary systems create intellect.
We know intellects create evolutionary systems.

We don't know what came first.....the evolutionary system or the intellect. You just assume it was the evolutionary systems because such an assumption is necessary to maintain your atheistic faith.

---

The bottom boxes inherit all of the properties of the parent, but have unique attributes of their own. They share all of the properties of the parent with each other.

The parent "box" is all Heywood systems. If all Heywood systems have the property of requiring intellect then the "bottom boxes" have that property as well. The bottom boxes would be "Heywood systems which use reproduction as its means of replication" and "Heywood systems which do not use reproduction as its means of replication".

Can you explain how intelligence develops spontaneously without evolution?

I want evidence and supporting peer reviewed papers to support your argument.

By the way I reject your assertion that evolution is a system.

This implies planning and evolution does not need that by it's very nature.

[Heywood]

So, still unable to tell us where we've observed an intellect that didn't originate on earth, eh woody? Or how to differentiate between smugness and rebuttal, apparently.

We've never observed an intellect originating anywhere other than earth. But I blame that on our lack of action/ability to look anywhere other than earth. Still, your question only backs my thinking.

Suppose one night, your mom tucks you into bed, kisses you on your forehead, turns on your nightlight, slowly closes the door while telling you to have sweet dreams. The next morning you awake to find yourself in a strange room without any apparent doors or windows. You realize you've been kidnapped.....but by who? If you've only ever observed earth intellects, and never observed non earth intellects, you'd conclude you were kidnapped by humans from earth. Your conclusion would be reasonable given your observation.

However, suppose you've just got a job with the Men in Black and have been introduced to all sorts of non earth aliens. Now you wouldn't be so sure you've been kidnapped by humans. You'd probably be checking your backside for probes placed by others instead of the ones placed there by yourself.

Asking where the intellect is that was necessary for the evolutionary system which created us is a very reasonable question. But it doesn't magically mean there was no intellect or there couldn't be an intellect....so it doesn't falsify my argument.

Oh, and if you insist on this argument that evolutionary systems can only come about via intelligence, would you mind telling us all where the intellect that created the very first evolutionary system came from?

Again there is observational evidence that intellects create evolutionary systems. There is also observational evidence that evolutionary systems create intellects. You assume, because your atheistic faith demands it, that evolutionary systems had to come first. I don't make such an assumption and your atheistic faith isn't a good enough reason for me to believe your assumption. Maybe the bottom of the hierarchy is an evolutionary system. Maybe it is an intellect. Again your question doesn't falsify my argument. Its just an interesting question that isn't answered by any of our observations.

[Cyberman]

Woody, please quit with the "atheistic faith" bit. You've been told time and again that there's no such thing.

[robvalue]

I think this thread is caught in some kind of time loop...

[bennyboy]

We've never observed an intellect originating anywhere other than earth. But I blame that on our lack of action/ability to look anywhere other than earth.

Even if you find a million species, all pumping out your pseudo-evolutionary systems, it still won't prove Sky Daddy, or show that any intentionality is intrinsic to the fabric of the universe. That's because all those million species are going to be products of evolution.

[Heywood]

Woody, please quit with the "atheistic faith" bit. You've been told time and again that there's no such thing.

Faith is believing in something without any evidence to support it. The claim that evolutionary systems can arise naturally, without any intellect, lacks any observational evidence to support it. It is a faith based belief often held by atheists only because their world view requires it. It is appropriate to call it an atheistic faith based belief as far as I am concerned. You can tell me time and again there is no such thing as "atheistic faith", but I just don't believe that to be true.

Are you warning me as an admin to stop using "atheistic faith" or are you simply commenting as a poster here? If I am going to get sanctioned for using "atheistic faith" then I will stop using it. I'll have to bow to Rome. If simply want me to stop using because it you think it is wrong then you just need to get over it and ignore it. I get over and ignore crap you guys say that is wrong all the time.

---

We've never observed an intellect originating anywhere other than earth. But I blame that on our lack of action/ability to look anywhere other than earth.

Even if you find a million species, all pumping out your pseudo-evolutionary systems, it still won't prove Sky Daddy, or show that any intentionality is intrinsic to the fabric of the universe. That's because all those million species are going to be products of evolution.

Simple observation will lead you the conclusion that one of the things intellects do is create evolutionary systems. In my experience, only intellects create evolutionary systems and natural processes do not. In my experience, only intellects create cars and natural processes do not. Getting back to the original question of this thread is how does one recognize design? Its experience.

[bennyboy]

Even if you find a million species, all pumping out your pseudo-evolutionary systems, it still won't prove Sky Daddy, or show that any intentionality is intrinsic to the fabric of the universe. That's because all those million species are going to be products of evolution.

Simple observation will lead you the conclusion that one of the things intellects do is create evolutionary systems. In my experience, only intellects create evolutionary systems and natural processes do not. In my experience, only intellects create cars and natural processes do not. Getting back to the original question of this thread is how does one recognize design? Its experience.

Intellects create evolutionary systems. Check. All evolutionary systems are therefore probably made by intellect. No check, as it's an obvious false syllogism.

You claim that your personal experience leads you to believe only what has been observed, or even worse, "observed to be implemented." And yet you believe in Sky Daddy. There's an obvious disconnect between the process you claim to follow, and the one you actually do.

[Heywood]

Intellects create evolutionary systems. Check. All evolutionary systems are therefore probably made by intellect. No check, as it's an obvious false syllogism.

You're leaving out the part that we have no observations of naturally occurring evolutionary systems....which is a little underhanded.

If you claim biological evolution is a naturally occurring(and here that means without intellect)....it is an atheistic faith based belief. The truth is we didn't observe the implementation of that system so we can't say it needed intellect or it didn't.

We can only say it is likely that all evolutionary require intellect. Or that it is likely not all evolutionary systems require intellect.

Observation supports the proposition that it is likely all evolutionary systems require intellect......and folks that is just the way it is. You will have to deal with it.

[Cyberman]

Faith is believing in something without any evidence to support it.

Correct.

The claim that evolutionary systems can arise naturally, without any intellect, lacks any observational evidence to support it.

Only because you have appointed yourself as sole arbiter of what constitutes observational evidence. For example, your continued use of the term "evolutionary systems".

It is a faith based belief often held by atheists only because their world view requires it.

And what "world view" would this be?

It is appropriate to call it an atheistic faith based belief as far as I am concerned. You can tell me time and again there is no such thing as "atheistic faith", but I just don't believe that to be true.

I think we've located the source of your confusion.

Are you warning me as an admin to stop using "atheistic faith" or are you simply commenting as a poster here?

My promotion really burns your biscuits, doesn't it?

Don't worry, you'll know when I'm wearing my Admin hat, because I'll write everything in blood red.

If I am going to get sanctioned for using "atheistic faith" then I will stop using it. I'll have to bow to Rome. If simply want me to stop using because it you think it is wrong then you just need to get over it and ignore it.

I'll do a deal with you. I'll ignore the "crap you say that is wrong" if you stop telling me and the rest of the atheist cabal what we believe, m'kay?

I get over and ignore crap you guys say that is wrong all the time.

So I see.

[Esquilax]

We've never observed an intellect originating anywhere other than earth. But I blame that on our lack of action/ability to look anywhere other than earth. Still, your question only backs my thinking.

So, when atheists do it, making assumptions based on no observations is a bad thing, but when you do it, it's perfectly alright? Do you even listen to yourself when you talk?

Suppose one night, your mom tucks you into bed, kisses you on your forehead, turns on your nightlight, slowly closes the door while telling you to have sweet dreams. The next morning you awake to find yourself in a strange room without any apparent doors or windows. You realize you've been kidnapped.....but by who? If you've only ever observed earth intellects, and never observed non earth intellects, you'd conclude you were kidnapped by humans from earth. Your conclusion would be reasonable given your observation.

However, suppose you've just got a job with the Men in Black and have been introduced to all sorts of non earth aliens. Now you wouldn't be so sure you've been kidnapped by humans. You'd probably be checking your backside for probes placed by others instead of the ones placed there by yourself.

How does this hypothetical support your position? The latter scenario features a person with additional evidence to support the idea of extraterrestrial life, evidence that you do not have. Unless you're claiming to be a member of the Men in Black, now?

Asking where the intellect is that was necessary for the evolutionary system which created us is a very reasonable question. But it doesn't magically mean there was no intellect or there couldn't be an intellect....so it doesn't falsify my argument.

But you're still making the assumption that an intellect was necessary, despite never observing it, which is the exact same line of reason you denigrate when we do it. Surely you see your own hypocrisy there?

Again there is observational evidence that intellects create evolutionary systems. There is also observational evidence that evolutionary systems create intellects. You assume, because your atheistic faith demands it, that evolutionary systems had to come first.

I assume no such thing, and how dare you try to dictate to me what my position is? Especially after you've been told, in this very thread, what it actually is; how can I take this as anything other than a lie, when I've told you before that neither of us know how life originated. I don't need to take the exact opposite position just to reveal the tangled, contradictory logic and self serving hypocrisies of your argument here. Drop the simplistic binary and actually listen to what someone else is saying before you disagree with them, next time.

I don't make such an assumption and your atheistic faith isn't a good enough reason for me to believe your assumption.

You don't make such an assumption? We're 109 pages into a thread of you defending the idea that intellect created evolutionary systems, assuming that to be true despite not having any evidence for it. Just denying that your hypocrisy exists is a tactic fit for a toddler, Heywood.

Maybe the bottom of the hierarchy is an evolutionary system. Maybe it is an intellect. Again your question doesn't falsify my argument. Its just an interesting question that isn't answered by any of our observations.

It puts your argument on self-refuting ground; you continue to use a lack of observations to dismiss the idea of natural means out of hand, yet your own argument ultimately relies on the same lack of observation. At the very least, that puts your argument on equal ground with the contra-positive, not the higher ground you want to place it on with your talk of observing evolution coming about via intellects, and your continued defense of this argument as somehow better is baffling and hypocritical because of these obvious weaknesses that you refuse to even acknowledge.

This is only compounded, by the way, by your constant shifting of the burden of proof, demanding that everyone else falsify ideas you've provided no evidence for. That's not how this works, and simply ignoring all the problems with your argument does not make it perfect, it just means you're being dishonest.