Is it designed?

[DogmaHunter]

So you can't answer either of those questions?

Why would I ask questions if I already have the answers?

You said the subject was not about gods, but ID, and I asked you to give me an example of an intelligent designer, I mean if it's not God what is it? if it is God, of course the thread is about God or at the very least it's not taboo to mention him in the discussion.

ID proponents insist that the "d" does not necessarily refer to a god.
According to them, ID is just a model that allows for detecting design, any design. "design" as opposed to natural origins.

My question is about that so-called theory. How does it work? How does it help detecting design? What is the methodology?

Can you "demonstrate" your take of what your asking of us, or why it wasn't ID, or whatever you claim it is? Or are you going to claim the usual "irrelevant" cop out? It's just as fair a question as you pose in the OP.

I think my question is clear enough.

ID proponents say that ID is a proper scientific theory that enables them to detect design when design is present.

I'm just asking how that works.
Again, what do you not understand about my question?

And BTW, who claimed they could detect design in objects? I've never once seen that claim until you said it existed.

Huh?????

It seems you are like completely unaware of what ID theory supposedly is according to the people that developed this (people like Dembski, Behe, etc).

It would surely explain why you are having trouble with the topic.

Common sense tells me that if the object is even there and you or I are unable to produce it from nothing, let alone not have a clue how it came to be, then it had to be ID, or at least from someone much smarter than us. Sometimes "There is no other explanation" IS an explanation.

That's called an argument from ignorance.

So instead of constantly insisting on asking your silly so-called stumpers like some of you have a bad habit of doing, why don't you come down to earth and try a some common sense/common sense questions? Or would that put you at a disadvantage?

Asking for a demonstration of what is supposed to be a scientific theory, is a "stumper"?


Owkay then.

I'm going to retract my previous comment to you.
It indeed seems as if you ARE done with this thread.
In fact, you don't even seem to realise what the thread is about. Eventhough I explained it over and over and over again.

 

[Astrophile]

Hey there folks

I've tried this several times on this forum already over the years. Every time though, it ended up in a beat-around-the-bush fest.

Let's see if it goes differently this time.
In this thread, I'ld like to have ID proponents to apply their "id theory" to a couple of examples and show us step by step how they conclude design (or not) using this method.

Please apply this "method" to the following objects:

A.
View attachment 246814

B.
View attachment 246815

C.
View attachment 246816

D.
View attachment 246817


Please use "ID methodology" to determine which one of these was designed and which were naturally formed.

If you can't for some reason, please explain that reason.

Note that I'm not actually that interested in the conclusions. What I'm interested in, is how you got to the conclusion! I want to see HOW ID can/should be applied. Specifically. This exercise is about a demo of the method.

I look forward to the arguments.

Tnx

What about this? Was this designed or was it naturally formed?

 

[DogmaHunter]

In order to know the design, you first need to understand the science of the feature. The sciences for A. B. C. cases are different and are not simple. How much you can learn would mostly depend on your attitude in the conversation.

What do you mean with "the sciences for a b c"? And why did you ommit d from that list?

Take case A first. The pebble with head figure is NOT the same as all the other pebbles in the image.

All the other pebbles are unique in there own respect as well. There are no 2 completely identical pebbles in that picture.

Not only the shape is different, the rock type is also different. The head figure could be artificial, and could also be natural.

Cool. So it could be both. The OP is asking how you can apply ID theory to find out which of both it is.

A quick conclusion is that this piece is not native in the environment and was placed there through a special process.

A "special process", like a human (or even animal) picking up a rock and dropping it somewhere else? Or some flooding carrying the rock from one place and leaving it behind in another?

Are such things relevant in detecting design in said rock?

So, I will temporarily stop here. These info is probably good enough to suggest the nature of design behind this odd piece of rock.

What info?
You completely lost me.
At which point did you apply ID theory here?
Are you saying that the rock in A, was designed? Or not?
Based on what?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Since you already know you lost credibility with me long ago as far as having a reasonable discussion, why don't you move directly to telling me you don't think I know the answer to that and then explaining how it's done.

I might even read your reply.

Hey Kenny, simple question - how do you detect design?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hey Kenny, simple question - how do you detect design?

You'ld think it's a simple question...................

Page 8. No answers.

 

[juvenissun]

Are you saying that the rock in A, was designed? Or not?
Based on what?

Yes. Based on its uniqueness in the picture.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes. Based on its uniqueness in the picture.

So, is that the objective criteria of ID theory to detect design?
If it is "unique", then it's designed?

That's the method?

What if the rock was picked up by a dog or person or whatever, from a place where hundreds of such rocks are found and then just dropped there?
Also, it seems to me that all rocks in the picture, are unique. It's not like it shows 2 identical rocks... Ironically, I'ld think that the only place where you would find identical rocks (or close to it, at least), would be in manufactured bricks or something. So the "uniqueness" criteria seems to be insufficient, as that criteria would lead to the conclusion that manufactured stones according to a single design, aren't in fact designed / manufactured.

So what about the cliff in picture C?
That's quite unique as well I would guess. So that's designed too?

Something doesn't seem to add up with the method here.
Are you sure there are no other objective criteria to detect design?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Yes. Based on its uniqueness in the picture.

Ok, that is your conclusion. How did you arrive at it?

 

[Speedwell]

If form alone were enough then why did you need more than the pictured before?

Because I detect design in a different way than IDists claim to be able to do. Form is not enough for me.

But maybe I'm wrong about how ID theory detects design. If I'm wrong it's up to you and the other IDists here to tell us how ID theory detects design, but none of you seem to be able to.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because I detect design in a different way than IDists claim to be able to do. I don't think form is enough.

But this thread, off course, is about asking IDists to show how they do it.

And I say "asking", because I don't expect a single IDists to actually properly answer it.

IDists: prove me wrong! Please!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You don't get it....The only question is whether the one who asked the question really know that much of science. Here we see one who don't, and insisted to be ignorant.

So asking a reasonable question is 'insisting on being ignorant', and you're displaying your knowledge of science by responding with 'God Works In Mysterious Ways' ?

I think I do get it.

 

[juvenissun]

Ok, that is your conclusion. How did you arrive at it?

Because I kind of know the origin of this rock.

 

[juvenissun]

So, is that the objective criteria of ID theory to detect design?
If it is "unique", then it's designed?

That's the method?

What if the rock was picked up by a dog or person or whatever, from a place where hundreds of such rocks are found and then just dropped there?
Also, it seems to me that all rocks in the picture, are unique. It's not like it shows 2 identical rocks... Ironically, I'ld think that the only place where you would find identical rocks (or close to it, at least), would be in manufactured bricks or something. So the "uniqueness" criteria seems to be insufficient, as that criteria would lead to the conclusion that manufactured stones according to a single design, aren't in fact designed / manufactured.

So what about the cliff in picture C?
That's quite unique as well I would guess. So that's designed too?

Something doesn't seem to add up with the method here.
Are you sure there are no other objective criteria to detect design?

I am confused on what kind of reason you are looking for.
Do you like to see the "method" by which IDer used to show the design of the rock in case A? If so, I am not answering your question. First, I am not an IDer. Second I do not know any method of ID.
The best I can say is that the rock is designed by God. What I can do is to lead you to see why is that. If that is not what you want, then I can not help in all cases of A, B, and C.

 

[juvenissun]

So asking a reasonable question is 'insisting on being ignorant', and you're displaying your knowledge of science by responding with 'God Works In Mysterious Ways' ?

I think I do get it.

I very very rarely say that.

 

[NBB]

It is unanswerable, only if the ID proponents are liars.
They say it is a scientific theory that can be used to detect design.

In this thread, I'm asking them to put their money where their mouth is, by asking them to do exactly that: use the theory to "detect design". Demonstrate its usefullness. Demonstrate the methodology. Demonstrate its practical appication.

Meanwhile, almost at page 5 and NOT A SINGLE ONE that even began a decent attempt.

ALL "creationist" replies have been nothing but derailments, dodges, one liners or jumping straight to the conclusion without demonstrating the steps they took to get to the conclusion - even though I literally say in the OP that the conclusion actually is of no interest to me at this point. What interests me in this thread, is a demonstration of the practical application of this so-called scientific theory.


The logical conclusion seems to be what we rational folks have known all along:
It is NOT a scientific theory.
It is NOT a model that can be applied in practice.
It is NOT usefull.
It can NOT detect anything.
It is.... nothing but religion (creationism) disguised in a lab coat.


To all ID proponents: PROVE ME WRONG.

Actually irreducible complexity makes sense, why parts would be built in an animal that are useless until all neccesary parts are in place?? perfectly logical if you think about it.

Is like evolution doesn't even try to build anythihng is just happen to get all parts together because yes trying to do something else in the process, bogus.
Oh sorry evolution doens't try anything it just 'happens'..

 

[NBB]

I think you can actually separate what is designed or not (specially the more complex machines) with irreducible complexity like it does in the thread: This is valid?
Is this valid?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I very very rarely say that.

So, it was either a very very rare mistake - or a very very special occasion to make a statement of ignorance and implied superiority

Just kidding.

 

[durangodawood]

I think you can actually separate what is designed or not (specially the more complex machines) with irreducible complexity like it does in the thread: This is valid?
Is this valid?

So example D is irreducibly complex?

 

[durangodawood]

So example D is irreducibly complex?

Actually it is irreducibly complex. Those 4 presidents could not have come together to form a functioning artistic whole without the mind of the designer.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Actually it is irreducibly complex. Those 4 presidents could not have come together to form a functioning artistic whole without the mind of the designer.

That's not what IC means.