Would stars and the universe be able to start an evolutionary system without intellect? It does not appear so. It appears that an intellect is necessary in the establishment of evolutionary systems. That is the claim of my argument.

Would intellect be able to start and evolutionary system without the stars and the universe? I don't think so....Evolution is a process that occurs on matter and information and thus requires a universe.

Both are requirements for evolution. You haven't shown that intellect isn't a requirement by pretending it wasn't a requirement. You simply don't know for certain if the evolutionary system identified by Darwin....the one that happens on planets which orbit stars in a universe....required an intellect. You weren't there to observe its inception. However you can deduce that it is highly probable it required an intellect if all other evolutionary systems require intellect.

You asked for an example. You say the stars and universe have no intellect and aren't an evolutionary system. If that is so then they are an example you are looking for of a non intellect creating an evolutionary system.

It seems to me that your counter claim amounts to a mere assertion that an intellect did not participate in the inception of the evolutionary system identified by Darwin.

Just because dumb planets and dumb stars play a roll in the evolutionary system identified by Darwin doesn't preclude the existence of an intellect. We simulate evolution on computers which are intrinsically dumb. A computer is not an evolutionary system. A computer is only capable of simulating evolution in conjuction with the participation of an outside intellect. So while I do agree with you that planets and stars are dumb, that is in no way an admission that there was no intellect involved in the evolutionary systems that have happened on them. On the contrary my argument suggest that it is more likely than not an intellect was involved.

In fact if you look at the complete circumstances of any evolutionary systems you will see that they include dumb elements and smart elemets. And given that observational evidence it takes a very great leap in faith to believe that somehow the evolutionary system identfied by Darwin was a special case that only required the dumb elements.

Not my claim, i don't know either way.

Nope it doesn't. But it shows a non intelligent system can create an evolutionary system.

Even if there is a wizard behind the curtain it seems it used a non intelligence system to create an evolution system.


Its funny. You ask for an example of a non intelligence which creates an evolution system. But all non intelligence also requires intelligence to create it, so the question is not answerable apparently. It was rigged.

Yes, you keep claiming this, but havent shown why you think this is so.

Which evolutionary systems are you referring to? Which smart elements are you referring to? Like most things, I think this comes down to definitions.

You can frame the question this way:

Do evolutionary systems require an intellect to come into existence?

This question is answerable because if you observe an evolutionary system coming into existence that did not require an intellect then the answer to the question is "No". However if you observe evolutionary systems coming into existence and find that they all require an intellect, each successive observation increases the probability that the answer to the question is "Yes".

Your counter argument about the stars and universe fails because it references a system whose circumstance of origin is unknown to us. You can't claim since the circumstances are unknown to us that therefore an intellect was not an element of it.

The only way to answer the question is to look at evolutionary systems whose circumstance of origing are known.

ALTER2EGO -to- STU PIDASSO:

That's it exactly. Atheists have no logical explanation for the precision we see in everything within the natural world. Precision is evidence that an intelligent person guided the outcome. These same people have no problem acknowledging that it took a well-trained, intelligent human to create a computer. Yet, they make the ridiculous argument that things in the natural world such as the Milky Way and the planets within it with their separate gravitational pull that keeps each planet within its orbit and prevents it from crashing into other planets—all of that, against which the computer looks like child's play—must have happened by itself. God's inspired Word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, makes it clear that there's no excuse for atheism.

"For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;" (Romans 1:20)

If you are looking for the definition of an evolutionary system this conversation on page 1 and 2 of this thread.

An evolutionary system is any process whereby small changes in the heritiable characteristics that accumulate thru a selective filter over successive generations ultimately results in significant increase in one or more of the following: complexity, diversity, and knowledge(I might consider others but these are the end results I can think of now).

The idea that planets should be bouncing off one another like pinballs shows a huge ignorance of the vast, vast amounts of space involved in, well, SPACE (not to mention the physics of gravity, and the vast amounts of time that has passed since the time when lots of things were crashing into each other).

That said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androme..._Way_collision

Good plan, gods. So "precise."

Things do indeed crash into each other out in space - rocks, planets, stars, galaxies... There is no "fine-tuning" here, just a whooooole lot of space between things that keeps such collisions tolerably rare.

Name of the argument is fine-tuned universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

There are a few scientific explanations for it. Here's a video on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-UI...eature=related


Probably the world wouldn't exist. EDIT: idk, just assuming.

EDIT: Here is Dawkins' video on the argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO0QRUX4HGE

It could be that God precisely tunned the amount of collisions in space.

Catastrophic asteriod hits on the earth happen with a frequency favorable to the developement of intelligence. If they were more frequent intelligent life would never have a chance to evolve and learn the knowledge needed to prevent a strike. If they were less frequent intellectually dead end branches(like the dinosaurs) wouldn't get wiped out often enough to insure an intelligent species would eventually come along within the biological life span of the earth.

Sorry I should have been more clear, I'm interested in the definition of "smart" elements, and rather the simple identification of which specific evolutionary systems which these smart elements map to.

This is why your question is unfair. It can't be no if all non intellect can be said to be ultimately caused by intellect. Any example given can be countered by. Well...we dont know if that non intellect is caused by intellect.

The question is rigged form within the universe since all non intellect that could cause an evolutionary system could itself be caused by inflect.


I dont claim that or argue it.

No...I disagree. If we observed some evolutionary systems come into existence and could not identify an intellect participating in the inception of it, then we could say the answer to the question, Do evolutionary systems require an intellect to come into existence? is NO.

Some might claim that just because we couldn't see the intellect doesn't mean it wasn't there and that claim should be dimissed as a non scientific claim. If we observed the inception of an evolutionary system and can't point to an intellect....then from a scientific stand point it wasn't there.

Now you tried to suggest that evolutionary system identified by Darwin did not require an intellect at its inception even though the inception of the system was unobserved. Suppose this is true. Why is it then that it only happened once? We should see evolutionary systems come into existence occasionally and not surprisingly we do. However in each subsequent case where we have observed the inception of an evolutionary system we can always point to a participating intellect.

Consider the hypothesis, If we observe the inception of an evolutionary system we will be able to point to an intellect participating in it.

As an atheist you should be able to say, "Hey stu here is an evolutionary system that we observed come into existence...please point out the intellect to us". If I can't...or if I claim that God was there you just didn't see him...or something along those lines.....then you have falsified the hypothesis.

Here is a clip from Richard Dawkins documentary, "The Blind Watch Maker"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sUQIpFajsg

Watch from 4 minute 40 seconds. Dawkins has a computer on which he evolves the shakespearian phrase, "ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL".

The computer is a dumb element. The smart element is Dawkins. The circumstances which allowed the computer to evolve the phrase would have never come together without his guidence.

The irony is he thinks he is cheating but the truth is he is a necessary component

What evolutionary systems have we observed come into existence, where we have identified an intellect participating in the inception of it?


( Of course, this all depends on definitions of "evolutionary system" and "come into existence")

And how do you compare that to evolution of life? Where is the necessary smart component that started it?

Yeah ok....

evolution - any process of formation or growth; development:
system - an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole

ex.
1. crystal formation
2. all kinds of naturally occurring chemical reactions
3. formation of stars, planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc. etc.
4. molecular self assembly

Emergence - Complexity from Simplicity, Order from Chaos (1 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdQgoNitl1g
Emergence - Complexity from Simplicity, Order from Chaos (2 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5NRNG1r_jI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

Of course you are now going to impose restrictions on the definition of evolution in such way that it will be impossible to point to any evolutionary system but the ones which are created using intelligence... you are creating a rigged request...

It's like requesting to list animals with 2 legs but requesting to only look into those who have 4 legs... impossible to do...

great lecture by Douglas Adams on the topic...

part1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msAF_MDYWNE
part2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSEhAWfJjP4

Its like we are talking past each other or your not reading my posts or something. I give...

No....I understand your objection. I just don't think it is reasonable. In the mind of a skeptic the hypothesis could be falsified by simply observing the inception of an evolutionary system without the participation of an intellect. A rationale skeptic isn't going to say, "Well...we dont know if that non intellect is caused by intellect". Those types of mental gymnastics are usually preformed by the YEC folk and my argument isn't directed at those people. On the contrary my argument is directed at people who call themselve rational skeptics.

The evolution of life on this planet....which I have been calling the evolutionary system identified by Darwin....its circumstances of origin were unobserved by human beings and therefore it is impossible for any of us to point to the "smart component" that started it.

My argument is an inductive argument that allows us to infer the existence of "smart component". The whole purpose of induction is to be able to make claims about things you can't observe directly. That being the case it is rather silly of you to dimiss my arugment simply on the basis I can't point out the "smart component" that I am inferring(unless your one of the few people who dimiss inductive arguments).

Your definition of evolution system is horrendously vauge. It is useless. None of those examples you've given are evolutionary systems.

Here is my definition of evolutiony system.

Outside this discussion you would find this definiton perfectly reasonable. It is not that I am creating a rigged request, it is that you are desperately trying to cling onto a world veiw that dictates my argument must be wrong. If my definition is reasonable...and if you cannot invalidate my argument....well then maybe it is time you change your world veiw.

Sigh...alright.