Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 3:23 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 3:24 pm by Heywood.)
(February 6, 2015 at 3:06 pm)Cato Wrote: (February 6, 2015 at 2:57 pm)Heywood Wrote: You don't understand the argument being made. Obviously you have not read the 99 pages of this thread.
If every waterfall you observe is the product of man, and you never observe a waterfall which is not the product of man, then you can conclude that all waterfalls are the product of man. That conclusion will stand until you at least come across a water fall that can't be the product of man, or observe one coming into existence not as the product of man.
The fuck I don't understand. Go back to page 94 and look again at your post #944. My waterfall example perfectly represents the argument you're making.
You're backtracking now, but you're argument still doesn't work. We dug the Panama Canal so I'm quite confident we can re-route a river to a nearby cliff if we wanted to. Does this mean that Niagra and other falls must be man-made? That's now your argument and it's still ridiculous.
No back tracking Cato.
The argument I made on page one is the same argument I am making on page 99. It is the same argument I proved in this thread
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30716.html
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 3:26 pm
(February 6, 2015 at 3:23 pm)Heywood Wrote: (February 6, 2015 at 3:06 pm)Cato Wrote: The fuck I don't understand. Go back to page 94 and look again at your post #944. My waterfall example perfectly represents the argument you're making.
You're backtracking now, but you're argument still doesn't work. We dug the Panama Canal so I'm quite confident we can re-route a river to a nearby cliff if we wanted to. Does this mean that Niagra and other falls must be man-made? That's now your argument and it's still ridiculous.
No back tracking Cato.
The argument I made on page one is the same argument I am making on page 99. It is the same argument I proved in this thread
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30716.html
The only thing you have proved is that your conclusion seems likely to you.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Posts: 3637
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 3:37 pm
(February 6, 2015 at 3:21 pm)Chas Wrote: I am not denying your set exists. What gave you that idea?
Do you understand what disjoint subsets are?
The set of all polygons is a set.
Quadrilaterals are a subset of polygons; triangles are a subset of polygons.
While they share the characteristics common to all polygons, they are disjoint subsets as neither shares all of the characteristics of the other.
Prove all you want about triangles, but you have proved nothing about quadrilaterals.
Your set contains some elements that reproduce and some that don't.
Those are disjoint subsets of your set.
Proving something about the subset of non-reproducers does not prove anything about the subset of reproducers.
Can't get any clearer than that.
Yet, he still won't get it.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 3:38 pm
(February 6, 2015 at 3:26 pm)Chas Wrote: (February 6, 2015 at 3:23 pm)Heywood Wrote: No back tracking Cato.
The argument I made on page one is the same argument I am making on page 99. It is the same argument I proved in this thread
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30716.html
The only thing you have proved is that your conclusion seems likely to you.
The conclusion seems likely to anyone who can think logically and formulates their world view based on observable facts instead of atheistic faith.
Posts: 67295
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 3:39 pm
100 OPA!
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 3:41 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 3:45 pm by Heywood.)
(February 6, 2015 at 3:37 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: (February 6, 2015 at 3:21 pm)Chas Wrote: I am not denying your set exists. What gave you that idea?
Do you understand what disjoint subsets are?
The set of all polygons is a set.
Quadrilaterals are a subset of polygons; triangles are a subset of polygons.
While they share the characteristics common to all polygons, they are disjoint subsets as neither shares all of the characteristics of the other.
Prove all you want about triangles, but you have proved nothing about quadrilaterals.
Your set contains some elements that reproduce and some that don't.
Those are disjoint subsets of your set.
Proving something about the subset of non-reproducers does not prove anything about the subset of reproducers.
Can't get any clearer than that.
Yet, he still won't get it.
Chas is wrong because something true about all polygons would be true of all triangles. I can't make his error any more clear than that.
If something is true about all the elements of the set I am talking about, it is true of biological evolution provided biological evolution is an element of the set I am talking about.
Posts: 6946
Threads: 26
Joined: April 28, 2012
Reputation:
83
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 3:45 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 3:46 pm by Cato.)
(February 6, 2015 at 3:23 pm)Heywood Wrote: The argument I made on page one is the same argument I am making on page 99. It is the same argument I proved in this thread
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30716.html
The argument in that thread is not the same. I handed you your ass in there too. The only thing you proved in that thread is that you don't understand probability.
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 3:48 pm
(February 6, 2015 at 3:45 pm)Cato Wrote: (February 6, 2015 at 3:23 pm)Heywood Wrote: The argument I made on page one is the same argument I am making on page 99. It is the same argument I proved in this thread
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30716.html
The argument in that thread is not the same. I handed you your ass in there too. The only thing you proved in that thread is that you don't understand probability.
Cato, if it makes you feel better to think that you've ever handed my ass to me.....go ahead and think that.
Posts: 6946
Threads: 26
Joined: April 28, 2012
Reputation:
83
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 3:52 pm
(February 6, 2015 at 3:48 pm)Heywood Wrote: Cato, if it makes you feel better to think that you've ever handed my ass to me.....go ahead and think that.
I'm not emotionally involved. I simply don't understand how you think invoking a thread that demonstrates your ignorance or intentional misuse of probability bolsters your argument here.
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 4:02 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 4:04 pm by Chas.)
(February 6, 2015 at 3:41 pm)Heywood Wrote: (February 6, 2015 at 3:37 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Can't get any clearer than that.
Yet, he still won't get it.
Chas is wrong because something true about all polygons would be true of all triangles. I can't make his error any more clear than that.
If something is true about all the elements of the set I am talking about, it is true of biological evolution provided biological evolution is an element of the set I am talking about.
But I am not wrong. You have yet to prove anything true of all Heywood systems, only the subset that don't reproduce.
If you still don't get it, you are hopeless.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
|
