Detecting design or intent in nature

[Heywood]

Your initial argument was that evolution must be designed, because all the evolutionary systems of which we know the origins were designed.

I never said that evolution must be designed. I don't make statement like that because I do not think like that. I make statements like "This observations suggest this" or "This observations gives you reason to believe". I think in terms of likelihood and confidence. My positions are tentative based on observations and information...not absolute like yours.

Your counter argument.....it fails miserably. Human and intellect are not the same thing and you are trying to intertwine them. It doesn't work. We know humans did not create the evolutionary system which created humans, so we have an effective observation of an evolutionary system which was not created by humans. Since at least one evolutionary system has been observed not to be created by humans the probability that all evolutionary systems require humans is 0. However you cannot argue that not all evolutionary systems require intellects until you actually observe an evolutionary system that did not require an intellect.

I think you realize your flaw and now you are trying to change tact....but your still failing. Your counter argument now consists of you arguing a position you don't even believe....that the only intellects are human. You're arguing that I should believe this argument because one observation suggests it. Well I am sorry but I don't because first of all it is only one observation and it doesn't carry much weight by itself.....certainly not enough weight to convince me to believe that humans are the only intellect. Second it is a myopic observation. Reality is a big place and I don't have the capability of surveying enough of it to come to a conclusion that humans are the only intellects.

You must realize that your counter argument is junk if you don't accept it yourself.

[Esquilax]

I never said that evolution must be designed. I don't make statement like that because I do not think like that. I make statements like "This observations suggest this" or "This observations gives you reason to believe". I think in terms of likelihood and confidence.

Do you wanna harp on sophistry, or do you want to address the points I made, which are still relevant to your argument whether you're speaking in terms of absolutes, or probabilities. Given how you seem desperate to avoid what I'm actually saying, I'm pretty sure you just have nothing to say to the spotlight being shone on the gaping holes in your argumentation.

My positions are tentative based on observations and information...not absolute like yours.

Given that I've said multiple times in this very thread that my position is that neither of us know the origins of evolution on Earth, this is clearly a lie and a strawman you're using here.

Your counter argument.....it fails miserably. Human and intellect are not the same thing and you are trying to intertwine them.

No, I'm not. In fact, I said in one of my last responses to you, just a page or so back, that intellect is not unique to humans. Literally the opposite of what you're telling me I'm saying now. You really don't have a single relevant point to make regarding this argument of mine, do you? Just a series of strawmen and smokescreens to obscure the utter failure of your position.

It doesn't work. We know humans did not create the evolutionary system which created humans, so we have an effective observation of an evolutionary system which was not created by humans.

Yes, but if you're trying to advance the probability of design on the basis of observations that we've made, it's equally true that the only effective observations you have as to the origins of intelligence places that intelligence squarely on Earth. You have no observations of intelligence arising anywhere else.

Now, personally I think there are other ways to derive probability than from straight up observation, but this isn't about me, either. You are the one trying to denigrate any position other than yours specifically by arguing that if we don't have direct observation of a thing, there is no valid reason to accept the possibility of it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander; if I can't entertain the idea of natural evolution because we don't have observations of it, then you equally can't entertain the possibility of intellects that didn't arise as a part of Earth's evolutionary system, as you don't have any observations of that either. That, or you could drop this argument of yours entirely, which would be the rational thing to do, when confronted with a hole in it as big as yours has.

Since at least one evolutionary system has been observed not to be created by humans the probability that all evolutionary systems require humans is 0. However you cannot argue that not all evolutionary systems require intellects until you actually observe an evolutionary system that did not require an intellect.

So, your argument basically goes like this: the things you want to argue for that don't have direct observations are entirely valid. The things I want to argue for that don't have direct observations are not valid.

What you're proposing has exactly the same level of observational evidence behind it as natural evolution; why are you breaking the premises of your own argument when it suits you?

I think you realize your flaw and now you are trying to change tact....but your still failing. Your counter argument now consists of you arguing a position you don't even believe....that the only intellects are human.

Are you insane? Want me to go back and find the quote of me saying the exact opposite of this, earlier? Hold on...

The quality of intellect may not be unique to humans, in fact I would say that we know it isn't, given that apes and dolphins and so on exist. But that's also not germane to my argument at all, because my argument is that you have no observations of intellects that did not arise as a result of Earthly evolution, which is still true whether intellect is unique to humans or not, and contradicts your claim that one needs observations in order to make valid arguments. Every time you respond to me you don't even touch the meat of what I'm saying; I wonder why that is?

It was on the last page! It was literally the post you were responding to! What's wrong with you? Are you lying, is that it? Did you think you'd get away with that, when I know what I've written and can find it with relative ease? Are you just not reading what I write? What mental failure of yours is preventing you from understanding simple, unambiguous statements in the thing you think you know enough about to respond to?

You're arguing that I should believe this argument because one observation suggests it. Well I am sorry but I don't because first of all it is only one observation and it doesn't carry much weight by itself.....certainly not enough weight to convince me to believe that humans are the only intellect.

Sorry Heywood: every observation we have ever made regarding biological life has had the source of that life be the Earthly evolutionary system. It's not just "one observation," it's every last part of biological science, throughout the history of humanity.

Is that enough observation yet? Somehow, I doubt it; you don't seem very concerned with your own hypocrisy, on this issue.

Second it is a myopic observation. Reality is a big place and I don't have the capability of surveying enough of it to come to a conclusion that humans are the only intellects.

So, let me get this straight: "Esquilax, you've got no observations of evolutionary systems arising naturally, so you can't argue for that! I've got no observations of intellect arising anywhere but Earth, but that's okay, because reality is a big place and I can't observe it all!"

Why doesn't that same argument work for natural evolution? Why is it that a lack of observations is a detriment to anything you disagree with, but it's a reason to believe whatever you agree with?

You must realize that your counter argument is junk if you don't accept it yourself.

It's a highlight of the hypocrisy of your position; since I don't hold that your position is true, I'm not bound to accept it. But you do think what you're saying is true, which means that, in your argument, what I'm saying is equally true.

[Chili]

I am telling you that Gen.1, 2 and 3 explain how the intelligent design is built inside the species, where Lord God is Plato's genus and the difference is made known by the essence we see that we call the son who brings logos to the fore, that would account for the difference between [bare naked] animal and the being in charge. For Plato this was a re-emergence and then we first see the body as byproduct with new life emerging from within.

Yeah, nice, and none of that has anything to do with evolution.

Actually it places the what is known as the Intelligent Design inside the species. Lord God is the animal here that is prior to the human condition and therefore is Supreme Ruler when push comes to shove. After all, survival is what evolution is all about as seen from the inside where God is short for the word 'good' and Lord God is the animal that must make sure he is OK with it too.

Lord God is the boss, = the animal in charge and 'like god' is the idea of himself used to test, sniff and taste while looking for goodies in life between the opposite that we know as good and bad including pleasure and pain, with all of them being an illusion as a quality in life in which also rainbows are seen and dreams can be lived for the better of both.

In this fashion [what we call] our senses are temporal add-on's used by the Being in charge to look for the goodies, while we as humans are in absence of a life of our own as outsider to him.

This would be what we call evolution today as seen after the fact, and that is were the word myopic has room to be while we forget that we look with our eyes and see with our mind.

Nearsightedness, or myopia, is the most common refractive error of the eye, and it has become more prevalent in recent years.

In fact, a recent study by the National Eye Institute (NEI) shows the prevalence of myopia grew from 25 percent of the U.S. population (ages 12 to 54) in 1971-1972 to a whopping 41.6 percent in 1999-2004.

Though the exact cause for this increase in nearsightedness among Americans is unknown, many eye doctors feel it has something to do with eye fatigue from computer use and other extended near vision tasks, coupled with a genetic predisposition for myopia.

In the above quote it is obvious that science does not see it my way, and will keep slicing away to get to the bottom of problem they see in the eye.

[FatAndFaithless]

Chili your posts are like bad poetry on peyote.

[abaris]

In the above quote it is obvious that science does not see it my way, and will keep slicing away to get to the bottom of problem they see in the eye.

Be assured, the ancient Rim Job culture saw it your way as far as myopia is concerned. Their vision was directed towards a specific orifice taking all their attention. They also understood the animal that is god, sniffing and licking and all that.

[Cyberman]

In the above quote it is obvious that science does not see it my way,

Between you and science, which of the two do you think is the one out of step?

[Chili]

Chili your posts are like bad poetry on peyote.

Except that we put some water in the wine to make it less potent, you think? Or is it maybe to see wisdom as needed to transform wine into the blood of Christ with the Amen from us.

This would confirm that we consume our equal in the wine that we drink, and in the body of Christ this would be without yeast to say that no passages must be read for us to say: yes.

[FatAndFaithless]

This is great stuff, it's like a Christian (read 'claims to be Catholic but every singe assertion he makes about the catholic church is wrong') version of Muslim Atheism from a few months ago.

All we're missing is the word "fallacy" at least half a dozen times per paragraph.

[Chili]

In the above quote it is obvious that science does not see it my way,

Between you and science, which of the two do you think is the one out of step?

Well I sure cannot deny the observation made by science as a fact that they see in the slices they make. These are simply statements of fact.

From there I must wonder why they see what they find, and more so if that is peculiar to America, where perhaps only this phenomenon is found. Note here that this research is American data only and does not exclude the rest of the world, I understand.

Beyond that I base this conclusion only on my assumption that we look with our eyes and see with our mind, and from here the physical structure of the American eye is changing, they say, and would that in itself not prove evolution at work, for better or worse?

---

This is great stuff, it's like a Christian (read 'claims to be Catholic but every singe assertion he makes about the catholic church is wrong') version of Muslim Atheism from a few months ago.

All we're missing is the word "fallacy" at least half a dozen times per paragraph.

Well sorry , I never claimed to be a good Catholic and always thought that bad Catholics were good Catholics who make the shepherd happy from time to time.

[FatAndFaithless]

This is great stuff, it's like a Christian (read 'claims to be Catholic but every singe assertion he makes about the catholic church is wrong') version of Muslim Atheism from a few months ago.

All we're missing is the word "fallacy" at least half a dozen times per paragraph.

Well sorry , I never claimed to be a good Catholic and always thought that bad Catholics were good Catholics who make the shepherd happy from time to time.

What in the hell does that mean?

And if you're admittedly a "bad catholic", then why the hell would you make assertions about the history and established beliefs of the Catholic church? Hell, at least admit that just about every claim you've made about the Church has been wrong, at least that's a starting point.