Posts: 13900
Threads: 262
Joined: January 11, 2009
Reputation:
82
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 31, 2015 at 8:10 am
(January 31, 2015 at 8:06 am)bennyboy Wrote: (January 31, 2015 at 6:47 am)robvalue Wrote: But how do you know that blue isn't pink? It could be that evolution is mammals. I mean, millions of cats are mammals, so probably everything else is cats, too.
No, wait, that doesn't make sense. I'm just assuming, I guess. 
The colours pink and blue would occupy different parts of the visible spectrum and can be detected measured and quantified.
Whether they look the same to everyone else is unknowable.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 31, 2015 at 8:13 am
I think cars do reproduce. They secrete ferrarimones.
Posts: 7140
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 31, 2015 at 8:14 am
We could make the next 90 pages go by quicker if we condense everything to "heywood, ur wrong" and "no u r."
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 31, 2015 at 8:27 am
(This post was last modified: January 31, 2015 at 8:38 am by Heywood.)
(January 31, 2015 at 7:46 am)bennyboy Wrote: ......Any system not man-made is not known to require intellect....
Lets look bird nest evolution. Pendulous nests evolved from pensile nests. Pensile nests evolved from cup nests. The evolution from cup nest to pendulous nest happened over thousands of generations. It is not a man made system, but it required the intellect of the bird. Your claim that all systems which appear to require intellect are man made is false.
If you accept Chas's definiton of biological evolution, "the imperfect replication of replicators" you cannot then say birds nest evolution is biological evolution. Birds nests do not reproduce.
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 31, 2015 at 8:55 am
(This post was last modified: January 31, 2015 at 8:58 am by Chas.)
(January 31, 2015 at 8:02 am)Heywood Wrote: (January 31, 2015 at 7:57 am)Chas Wrote: I defined set E as containing one member.
Your definition of set E is incorrect so I am correcting your definition and destroying your refutation.
You are really grasping now.
Your thesis remains unproved as your argument is a pile of logical error and word games.
Carry on with your errors. I suggest you contemplate why no one accepts your argument as valid.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 31, 2015 at 8:57 am
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 31, 2015 at 9:15 am
(January 31, 2015 at 8:55 am)Chas Wrote: I suggest you contemplate why no one accepts your argument as valid.
Doing so would require them to consider rejecting their atheism and they are afraid to do that.
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 31, 2015 at 9:23 am
(January 31, 2015 at 9:15 am)Heywood Wrote: (January 31, 2015 at 8:55 am)Chas Wrote: I suggest you contemplate why no one accepts your argument as valid.
Doing so would require them to consider rejecting their atheism and they are afraid to do that.
No, it would require us to overlook your logical errors.
The only one guilty of presupposition here is you.
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:
46
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 31, 2015 at 9:38 am
(This post was last modified: January 31, 2015 at 9:57 am by bennyboy.)
(January 31, 2015 at 8:27 am)Heywood Wrote: (January 31, 2015 at 7:46 am)bennyboy Wrote: ......Any system not man-made is not known to require intellect....
Lets look bird nest evolution. Pendulous nests evolved from pensile nests. Pensile nests evolved from cup nests. The evolution from cup nest to pendulous nest happened over thousands of generations. It is not a man made system, but it required the intellect of the bird. Your claim that all systems which appear to require intellect are man made is false.
If you accept Chas's definiton of biological evolution, "the imperfect replication of replicators" you cannot then say birds nest evolution is biological evolution. Birds nests do not reproduce. Okay, if you want to call bird actions "intellect," then it's no sweat off my nose. I'd call them "instinct," but whatever. Can I assume that you are trying to introduce a slippery slope, and that you will call organized formations of plants "intellect," and then perhaps snowflakes, then anything which intelligently responds to gravity by falling toward things?
![[Image: 2cgxx5k.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i60.tinypic.com%2F2cgxx5k.jpg)
Your God-leading assertions are still busted, and for the same reasons.
(January 31, 2015 at 9:15 am)Heywood Wrote: (January 31, 2015 at 8:55 am)Chas Wrote: I suggest you contemplate why no one accepts your argument as valid.
Doing so would require them to consider rejecting their atheism and they are afraid to do that. People are generally not afraid of rejecting their non-beliefs about the reality of fairy tales. Are you afraid of rejecting your lack of belief in Space Monkey Bobo and his cosmos-forming poo-flinging?
(January 31, 2015 at 8:14 am)Tonus Wrote: We could make the next 90 pages go by quicker if we condense everything to "heywood, ur wrong" and "no u r." No no no. We're not allowed to finish this thread until we have all of: cat memes, animated masturbation smilies, references to Hitler, a challenge to a 1-on-1 debate which is accepted and then "postponed" permanently with sudden claims of burdensome (and crucially important) schoolwork, and at least one use of the Ban Hammer in the sky. Where's your forum spirit?
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
January 31, 2015 at 10:41 am
I pointed out a million times already, this argument gets you to "some intelligence", not God. So no, I wouldn't have to abandon my atheism to agree with you. But I disagree with you because your argument is utterly wrong.
|
