Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 26, 2015 at 4:56 pm
(This post was last modified: January 26, 2015 at 5:07 pm by Chas.)
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
45
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 26, 2015 at 8:01 pm
(This post was last modified: January 26, 2015 at 8:01 pm by bennyboy.)
I really think you guys getting caught up in defining evolution is pointless. I'd accept Heywood's version of evolution as a simple definition: the change of species' phenotypes in response to statistical pressures. But all this is just a giant redding herring. He wants to assert the existence of intellect in the universe (aka God), but does not have actual evidence for said existence. He's therefore drawing parallels between things we know and things we cannot know-- but hasn't provided either logical proof or evidential support for that process, either. He has not shown his parallels to be either valid or meaningful.
In the end, the situation is pretty clear: Heywood believes in God, and is trying to find a way to make the God idea fit into a sensible word view. But when a sensible world view includes a demand for him to accept the BOP, he just can't provide any meaningful evidence for his idea.
Posts: 29101
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
154
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 27, 2015 at 5:58 am
What if one of these arguments actually worked one day, and they finally found out they have all been worshipping the devil? I suppose I should have told you guys that already. You're all worshipping the devil. He killed all other gods long ago. You'll see everything fits perfectly with this narrative.
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 27, 2015 at 8:20 am
(This post was last modified: January 27, 2015 at 8:21 am by Chas.)
(January 27, 2015 at 7:41 am)Heywood Wrote: (January 26, 2015 at 4:56 pm)Chas Wrote: While you might loosely call this 'evolution', it bears no resemblance to biological evolution. It is a silly example that does nothing to support your argument.
What makes biology special in your mind that it can be the only thing in the universe which can evolve? Why can't cars, or sets of variables in a computer evolve?
I have not said that.
However, your whole thesis is about demonstrating that biological evolution requires intellect. If your 'evolution' examples aren't isomorphic to biological evolution, your argument becomes trivial and uninteresting.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 27, 2015 at 2:34 pm
(This post was last modified: January 27, 2015 at 2:34 pm by IATIA.)
Susceptibility is inheritable. There are many issues that skip generations then pop up again.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 1065
Threads: 6
Joined: June 19, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 27, 2015 at 2:57 pm
But you would still expect family history to be a risk factor.