It was supposed to be funny. 
Oh, I missed that.
Again, Kingdaddy, “any form of intelligent source” is not the same as a “singularity to all things.” And the onus to provide evidence of an intelligent source is much greater than that to provide evidence of any old source.
The only thing i added is intelligence; source and singularity are synonymous as far as I know, yes?
Now for intelligence:
I don’t know if I can prove it without a doubt but logic tells me it is the most probable of all the scenarios I can think of and here is why.
I know of no evidence of a lower order or non intelligence giving birth or evolving to intelligence. Origin of Species theory has been trying to tie up all the loose ends for many years and still comes up short, there simply is no real evidence that dumb can beget smart no matter how long you wait. All of the examples we can observe support intelligence begetting intelligence and non-intelligence begetting non-intelligence, the rest is pure wishful speculation. Algae has been dumb from the beginning and still is, no signs of any evolution or mutations that might beget a higher order of complexity. Humans have been able to communicate and think independently from the beginning as well according to all known evidence.
Of course you are welcome to show any counter evidence or other scenarios if you like, but it must be more then unsubstantiated theory, I’m going on hard evidence so I’ll expect the same if your going to trump me.
What is your standard for hard evidence? Are you going to reject any indirect evidence? If not, there is pleanty of evidence in favor of evolution. There is plenty of evidence in favor of emergent properties. There is plenty of evidence that the type of process that would be required for intelligence to emerge from a system of simple parameters can happen.
And I wonder why you offer a negative argument. In the void of an argument in favor of an unitelligent cause, is belief in an intelligent cause to be taken as the default? Why wouldn’t the two hypotheses be equal with equal evidence (and since order, complexity, beauty, etc. are all to be expected under either explanation, they do not count as evidence in support of either).
Macro Evolution is not observed, Micro is. This is what I call hard evidence, observable evidence. Now I will accept observable evidence that leads to some logical probabilities that cannot be observed as long as it does not contradict what can be observed.
There is no distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. They are the same process. The distinction is an invention of creation science, used to ignore evidence for evolution.
More specifically, there is no evidence that there is a limit to the evolution we have observed, and there is evidence that the process has been going on for many millions of years.
What observation does that contradict? And where is you positive argument for god?
That’s not exactly a sound paradigm for logical necessity. If anything, it’s not logic that tells you what you expound there.
The form of your argument is that if we would have A, then B would probably be the case. We observe B, hence it is probable that A is the case too.
That’s not valid logic, by any means.
I have no idea how you twisted what I said into “if we would have A, then B would probably be the caseâ€. I am only talking about what we observe which would be A, you made up the B part, not I.
If I misunderstood tats because it was a lousy example IMO, it works better if you use real world examples instead of algebraic ones.
So try again if I am misunderstanding.
You’re saying that if there were some intelligent super-being, then intelligent life would have to stem from it. We have intelligent life, therefore, there also has to be some intelligent supersomething that begot us.
Isn’t this what you were saying ?
Basically, although I don’t like the way you worded the first part. I am saying that it is illogical that intelligence came from nothing, it must have come from other intelligence that was always present and had no beginning.
Something does not come from nothing and nothing in our observance supports the idea of this. So intelligence cannot have evolved from a chaotic purposeless ignorant self-replicating cell that popped into existence from absolutely nothing or nowhere. Now that idea is completely illogical and my idea is far more probable and logical and simple.
What about tea? Before, I had hot water, which isn’t tea, and leaves, which are not tea. But combine them, and look! Tea! It came from nowhere!
Combining two existing things to make something else does not refute anything I am saying about something from nothing, does it?
Now if you can show how the water or the Tea leaves proofed into existence without any possible preexisting source then your getting somewhere.
Sorry, but that was a really bad example, surely you can do better then that.
It was a great example to show that intelligence doesn’t need to come from intelligence, just like tea doesn’t need to come from tea. In this discussion I haven’t taken issue with there being an origin of things, I have taken issue with there being an intelligent origin of things. Your sole positive argument was that something can’t come from nothing, so intelligence can’t come from unintelligence. My example shows that, in that sense, something can and does ‘come from nothing’: tea from un-tea.
Just for clarification…
What kind of intelligence are we arguing about here?
Intelligence as in “one human is more intelligent that another”?
Or Intelligence as in “Humans are more intelligent that rocks”?
I think time is wasted on say “intelligent design” or whatever, and we should instead talk about “conscious design”. I guess that begs the question of what is design? But who’s to say that a god didn’t create single celled organisms first as a prototype, then through the years added and removed various bells and whistles and eventually honed the design to what we see today? I can feel creationist’s ass muscles tighten at this notion. God is the best inventor and the best INNOVATOR. Seven days my ass.
But I mean think about it. Science is a process of trial and error. God (if he exists/ed) could be the creator AND the evolver. If this sort of creation science was somehow squeezed into the curriculum I would gladly attend the classes, and I would take notes because I want to be a creator just like God.
But what’s the point? God is an empty rider on that hypothesis. Take away god, and you still know just as much about how intelligence came to be, and you remain ignorant about the ultimate origins of the whole thing.
No, it shows nothing of the sort, how you think it does is a mystery to me. You can’t mix examples of non-intelligence with intelligent sentient beings; it just doesn’t work because there is a different set of rules and affects with the choice variables caused by intelligent sentient beings.
Try an example using a sentient life form and see if you can show something from nothing. Either way pre-existing tea leaves and water combining is far from any idea of something from nothing, that’s just silly actually.
This is true, and that is why asserting the existence of supernatural minds, beings, people, places, things, ideas, occurances, miricles, etc, is a waste of time because there is not sufficient evidence to support the existence of them.
Kingdaddy, it is a silly example for a silly claim. It show that the principle that you have present is bunk. Things can come from things that they are not. This is especially true of properties (like intelligence): Put a lot of small things together, and you get something big. Put a lof of light things together, and you get something heavy. And while a single neuron can’t solve a problem or react very usefully to a context, a lot of neurons can. Why should intelligence be taken to be something that cannot ‘come from nothing’? You’ve done nothing but assert that, and condescendingly evade my points. Let’s have a case for your point of view.
You use the term intelligent a bit loosely, and it becomes fuzzy. We’re intelligent because we can speak and we understand things, not because we actively control the complex features of our body.
What I tried to point out earlier is exactly what Carleas is saying. There is no logical constraint to the fact that intelligence must arise from an equally or superior intelligent force.
Don’t get upset, I’m not challenging your beliefs and I’m definitely not going to get into an intelligent design argument. I’m just saying that your inductive method needs revisiting.