Is it designed?

[durangodawood]

You'ld have a point, if it wasn't for ID proponents themselves giving examples of non-living things on multiple occasions.

And even if you are correct, any ID proponent could still come on here, and explain why it doesn't work on rocks and thereby also point out the methodology in the process.

See Paley's watch, for example....

Yes, the argument from deign has been around forever in one form or another.

But "intelligent design" as such is a specific modern argument intended to be applicable to biological features only.

I do appreciate that ID'ers often and mistakenly want to spray everything with a coating of ID.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

It is all designed. Even the natural occurrences that you see follow laws of nature. Laws = non-random.....

The shapes you imagine are just that, imagination..... It's a product of our minds that look for pattern recognition.....

Can you really say that the forces of what we call nature are random when they all follow specific scientific laws????? The stone weathers because of entropy and decay, the image you think you see is just your mind looking for patterns....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I do appreciate that ID'ers often and mistakenly want to spray everything with a coating of ID.

I appreciate that evolutionist's often and mistakenly want to spray everything with a coating of Evo....

 

[xianghua]

How can we detect such? By probability of outcomes?
The question remains then: what's the threshold? What's the magic number? How was that threshold obtained? And how do you know when the threshold is reached, since you previously said that you can't calculate the odds of the cliffs in the OP? How then can you know if the threshold was reached?

let me ask you this: how do you know that a watch is the product of design?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

let me ask you this: how do you know that a watch is the product of design?

Marks of manufacture and use of manmade materials.

Now it's your turn to answer @DogmaHunter's question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

let me ask you this: how do you know that a watch is the product of design?

The same way I know that mt rushmore is the product of artificial design.
Signs of human manipulation of raw materials. I'ld even say perhaps that I actually do not recognise design. I rather recognise use of technology.

 

[xianghua]

Signs of human manipulation of raw materials.

but human also mnipulate genomes.so according to this criteria genome is also a product of design.

 

[Speedwell]

but human also mnipulate genomes.so according to this criteria genome is also a product of design.

Genomes which have been manipulated by humans would be evidence of design if you could detect that manipulation had occurred. Otherwise it would be just another genome and you couldn't tell if was the product of design.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

but human also mnipulate genomes.so according to this criteria genome is also a product of design.

Non sequitur. The criteria used are:
1. Signs of manufacture.
2. Use of man made materials.

Can you show how either of these are present in a manipulated genome? If not, your claim is baseless.

 

[DogmaHunter]

but human also mnipulate genomes.so according to this criteria genome is also a product of design.

Only if you can recognise the manipulation and only to the extent of the manipulation. The "design" part is limited to that manipulation.

Take Mt Rushmore. There's signs of manipulation there. So the carving was done by humans. The rock it's carved out of, is not done by humans.

So if you could demonstrate that a specific genes has been artificially switched on/off or was removed / added by a human, then the "design" part would also be limited to just that one thing. It would obviously be wrong to conclude that therefor the entire genome was manipulated / created.

Just like it's wrong to conclude that humans created the entire mountain in which those faces were carved.