Detecting design or intent in nature

[Esquilax]

Intellect create evolutionary systems, we know this to be a fact and we have plenty of observations of such. We have 0, zilch, nada....not even one iota of an observation of an evolutionary system coming into existence sans intellect.

Human intellect creates evolutionary systems, we know this to be a fact and we have plenty of observations of such. We have 0, zilch, nada... not even one iota of an observation of an evolutionary system coming into existence sans human intellect.

Therefore, it is most rational to assume that the evolutionary system that led to human intellects was created by human intellects.... oh wait...

[Heywood]

What is the substantial difference between generic intellect and human intellect? If they are substantially the same thing I don't see what the issue is.

The difference is that you don't have any evidence of generic intellects existing or involving themselves in earthly affairs, which according to your own premises should preclude them from your list of possible origins for evolutionary systems.

They could be functionally identical to human intellects, but if they don't come from Earth, as the product of an Earthly evolutionary system, then you've never seen them before and therefore must eliminate them from the running. It's the flaw in your argument that turns the entire thing into a circular, self refuting mess.

In order to observe intellects outside of earth, I have to look outside of earth and I do not have the means to do that in any substantial detail. This is why I do not observe these generic intellects.

On the other hand you have a problem. If evolutionary systems can come into existence on this planet sans intellect as you are arguing....You should be able to observe evolutionary systems come into existence on this planet sans intellects. Instead you only observe evolutionary systems coming into existence on this planet with the help of intellects. Your beliefs do not match the observations. In fact observations contradict your beliefs.

[The Grand Nudger]

No amount of asserting what you've been asked to demonstrate will ever transform your assertions into a demonstration Heywood.

You mentioned, earlier in the thread IIRC..that your intention was to convince people of god. Are you capable of taking a step back - and assessing whether or not you might be able to accomplish that goal in this manner? Or is your intention to go down with this burning ship...both yourself and "god" onboard? You lose credibility with every post, and you're going to need that credibility if you ever do stumble into a good argument, don't you think?

[abaris]

Instead you only observe evolutionary systems coming into existence on this planet with the help of intellects. Your beliefs do not match the observations. In fact observations contradict your beliefs.

What the fuck are you on about? Which evolutionary systems came into being with the help of intellect? It seems to me, there's a fundamental misunderstanding on your part what evolution actually is.

[Esquilax]

In order to observe intellects outside of earth, I have to look outside of earth and I do not have the means to do that in any substantial detail. This is why I do not observe these generic intellects.

But you assume they're out there based on, ahem, "0, zilch, nada... not even one observation of a generic intellect," eh?

On the other hand you have a problem. If evolutionary systems can come into existence on this planet sans intellect as you are arguing....You should be able to observe evolutionary systems come into existence on this planet sans intellects.

Well, given that the only evolutionary system on Earth is nature, it's very possible that we do have an example of such a system. Neither of us know for certain, but what we can ascertain is that your reasoning for excluding natural means and leaning toward intelligent design is nonsensical.

Instead you only observe evolutionary systems coming into existence on this planet with the help of intellects. Your beliefs do not match the observations. In fact observations contradict your beliefs.

Well, if we're going to argue based on observations then we've also not seen any evolutionary systems arise as a result of non human intelligences, as we've not observed any of those at a level of complexity sufficient to accomplish that.

If you want to argue based on observations then at best you are making two assumptions that aren't based on observation, whereas I'm only making one. Of course, since my position is that we don't know how our natural evolutionary system arose, but that your argument is stupid, I'm not making any beliefs that don't match observations at all, whereas the observations we do have exclusively contradict your beliefs, and not mine.

[Heywood]

Human intellect creates evolutionary systems, we know this to be a fact and we have plenty of observations of such. We have 0, zilch, nada... not even one iota of an observation of an evolutionary system coming into existence sans human intellect.

Therefore, it is most rational to assume that the evolutionary system that led to human intellects was created by human intellects.... oh wait...

Intellect is a faculty which humans possess but there is no strong reason to believe it is exclusive to humans. We've observed but a tiny fraction of reality so we should have little confidence that human intellect is the only intellect which exists in reality as your argument suggest.

On the otherhand if evolutionary systems on this planet can exist sans intellect we should observe them coming into existence on this planet sans intellect. We don't. We have we have explored and observed this planet in great detail an it appears that evolutionary systems on this planet can only come into existence with the help of intellect.

[The Grand Nudger]

Reasserted. 20 some odd pages of assertion. Time to put up or shut up, you'd think.

[Esquilax]

Intellect is a faculty which humans possess but there is no strong reason to believe it is exclusive to humans. We've observed but a tiny fraction of reality so we should have little confidence that human intellect is the only intellect which exists in reality as your argument suggest.

Oh, so we're only bound to consider possibilities exclusively by observation when it suits you! Gotcha.

Either modulate your argument so that observations aren't the only means by which we can probabilistically determine the origin of something, or stop using the argument, but don't special plead and pretend you're arguing consistently when you're not.

On the otherhand if evolutionary systems on this planet can exist sans intellect we should observe them coming into existence on this planet sans intellect. We don't. We have we have explored and observed this planet in great detail an it appears that evolutionary systems on this planet can only come into existence with the help of intellect.

But there's only one "evolutionary system" in existence in the natural world, for which every being it produces is a part of that broader system. It's not so much that we don't observe new systems coming into being naturally, but that when they do they are enfolded into the much older, continuous system that has been producing life since the beginning of it on this planet. Your argument for why we should exclude natural means on earth is complete nonsense.

The worst part is, even if your argument actually functioned- and you don't really seem to realize why it doesn't, just yet- you would still be falling victim to a number of fallacies that have been pointed out to you in the past, not the least of which is that what you're committing here is an argument from ignorance, that can be demonstrated to be wrongheaded with one simple sentence:

White swans cannot exist because I've only ever seen black swans.

You really are just fractally wrong here, Woody: everything new we have ever discovered was unobserved before we discovered it.

[Chas]

biological evolution

Chas is assuming his own conclusion. Chas assumes the biological evolutionary system which resulted in his existence didn't require an intellect....so he concludes it didn't require an intellect. Chas wasn't around and certainly isn't privy to the details of how the evolutionary system which resulted in us came into existence. His assumption/conclusion is worthless.

No, I'm not.
There is no evidence that evolution required an intellect.
There is no evidence that any mechanisms in evolution require an intellect.
There is no evidence that the products of evolution are the products of intellect.

Your conclusions are specious.

[The Grand Nudger]

Jesus christ I missed that, he Ken Hammed you...lol

"Chas wasn't there"

Guess what gigglesticks, you weren't either - your assertions are dismissed, again... on grounds you yourself have supplied, again. Thanks.