That's cool, good for you.

Are you here to discuss the topic?

Stu, let's grant you that it is possible that an intellect can manually create life in a laboratory(something I actually don't disagree with you as I pointed it out in another reply), how do you make the conclusion that the life on earth was actually jump started by an intellect? You've made a following claim...

""All I have shown is that evolutionary systems whose origins we know about, all required an intellect. From that we can infer that the evolutionary system identified by Darwin also must have required an intellect."

I don't see how you go from intellect might be able to create life to "evolutionary system identified by Darwin must have required an intellect"

Don't you see that your reasoning just does not follow?

That was a poor choice of words on my part. My argument doesn't show that the probability an intellect was involved is actually 1. I should have phrased it "probably required an intellect".

Sorry for the error.

No problem, I pointed it out that you did change the position a bit from must require to probably requires... NOW, I will admit that this change probably makes a bit of a difference. But you are still left with a burden of proof to demonstrate that it does probably require intellect... and while I don't disagree that intellect probably could create life one day if we do come to that knowledge, I just don't see how you can actually demonstrate that the evolution of life on earth did require any intellect. Sure you say probably, meaning maybe it did, maybe it didn't , if that's the case than what are we really arguing about? I admit, maybe it did , maybe it did not, in my understanding, nothing points out to me that it did require intellect since in none of the evolutionary processed we do require intellect in any sense to explain evolution and it's workings , nor we require any intellect in creation of amino acids(abiogenesis - let's make that distinction). Sure we still don't know how the first replicating life showed up, but just because we don't know that at the moment it does not mean a natural explanation is not what it will end up being..

What I don't understand is, why do you even want to argue about this? Don't you agree that if this whole universe was designed somehow by someone, he could have designed the universe in such way that inorganic matter turns into organic matter without any additional help, in the sense as any other naturally occuring chemical reactions happen. So what's the point of trying to prove that that spark must have been the result of intervention of intellect, when you can just argue that all the processes were already designed in the blueprint of universe and it's laws?

Heres an example of an evolutionary system. Me.
I came into existence when I was born, any children I have will be part of this evolutionary system. Intellect was not needed to create this evolutionary system.

You don't have to be very precise at any stage in the game if you have millions of drafts to make subtle adjustments on.

You and your children are products of the evolutionary system identified by Darwin. The origin of that system was unonbserved so you cannot say one way or the other whether an intellect was involved.

You and your whisper game are products of the evolutionary system identified by darwin. The origin of that system was unobserved so you cannot say one way or the other whether an intellect was involved

If that were true then every construction of man is the product of evolution and thus it cannot be said that an intellect was involved one way or another.

Are you honestly considering the proposition that ultimately no intellect was involved in the design and construction of the car you drive?

It is the game itself that has to be precisely constructed.

I think that is exactly the point he is making.

It is also a game-breaker for your own argument. Essentially you have to show that intellect can not be the result of a non-intelligent process to proceed with your argument unchanged.

Yes, every construction of man is in fact the product of evolution.

The implications of such a position would be that intellect doesn't really exist. If that is the case don't put a lot of stock in your cognitive abilities. Your thoughts arn't "trying" to discern truth but rather just get by the selective filter.

No, its the implications of your position.
You denied my evolutionary system, and so denied your own evolutionary system by the same reasoning. if you accept your evolutionary system, you have to accept mine, and so your premise is invalid.

He is claiming that everything is ultimately the result of evolution. Why are you giving him a pass? Why doesn't he have to show that evolution can happen without intellect?

This counter argument of his....which you are buying into....is handwavy.

Evolution is happening without intellect and we are observing it... are you asking about the process of abiogenesis?

I have never claimed that evolution cant happen without intellect, or cant happen with it. I am responding to the premise you started with.

Its the implication of any position which claims that humans today are solely the product of evolution. A naturalist would say your thoughts and your behavior are governed by your nuerology(which evolves). Well in evolution thoughts arn't important...what is important is behavior. Your thinking can be completely wrong and it doesn't make a lick of difference as long as your behavior leads to survival long enought to pass on your genes. You did not evolve to discern the truth.

Further....I did not deny your evolutionary system. I said "your system" was one and the same with the evolutionary system identified by Darwin(don't fret this mistake....cause its not your fault....you didn't evolve to discern the truth). It isn't something new that came along when you were born. The changing heritable characteristics you pass on today can trace their origins back to the first living thing.

In the whispers game the heritable characteristics....i.e....the whispered message...doesn't come into being until the teacher who begins the conceptualizes it.

Poor choice of words on my part again...I meant evolutionary systems can't come into being without evolution.

your system is also one and the same with the evolutionary system identified by darwin.

So how do you know the evolutionary system identified by Darwin is not the product of intellect? Your counter argument...depends on that being true. What if the evolutionary system identified by Darwin is the product of intellect. Wouldn't that mean that the car you drive is once again ultimately the product of intellect?

You see your claim that it is all just one big evolutionary system depends on the premise that intellect is the product of evolution, while assuming evolution cannot be the product of intellect.

I would believe this statement if you could show that the heritable characteristics of the Whisper game are the same heritable characteristics that you passed on to your childern.

As far as I am concerned if the heritiable characteristics of each system don't share a common ancestor then they are seperate and distinct systems. The fact that the actors in the whispers game evolved is immaterial.

you mean without intellect.... so basically this is really a discussion about abiogenesis... what you are arguing is that intellect is able to create information and pass it on to another intellect, and you try to compare this to evolution of life. But when you look into life , this is not really how things happen. And I understand why you are calling your passing on of information by humans an "evolutionary system", it kind of resembles the passing of information (DNA) from one generation to another generation. But I think the differences show up when you actually go into a detail of each "system".

You argument is that because we don't know how the first life with information and ability to copy that information to another generation exactly happened than we should default to the idea that intelligence probably jump started that process. While I don't disagree that this could be possible, I don't see a reason to believe that this was the case. Sure , intellect is able to be the cause of many things, but it is not required as evident in many other processes out there in this universe.

Abiogenesis is still a field that is not totally figured out, but we do have some clues. Clues that lead us to believe that inorganic matter can turn into life without the help of anyone. Sure this is still unproven, but in the universe where so many unknowns used to be explained by supernatural forces and all of the ones we ended up explaining showed no need for supernatural, therefore I am more likely to believe that the abiogenesis as well requires no intellect.

lol no, where did you get that from? I said nothing of the sort.

I have made no claims about whether intellect was needed to start evolution. I am addressing your claim that all evolutionary systems that we have observed have needed intellect to start. I gave an example of one evolutionary system that didnt need intellect to start, and you rejected it. On the grounds that you rejected it, your example is also rejected.