Is it designed?

[durangodawood]

Not sure what side you fall on here, but can you answer the OP's question?

To the OP's question:
No, I cannot identify which of the 4 items are designed using ID methodology.

In fact, I dont even think its a fair question, as ID methodology is only meant to apply to biological forms, which those examples are not.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Anyone else find it funny why any "method" other than common sense would be necessary to know that was ID'd?

And what's even funnier, best I can gather, we aren't allowed to use that obvious method, he actually requires proof. Some things are just clear, or it's called the "Seeing is believing" method.

You've out done yourself there, Derwood.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You got a better answer?

Didn't I already tell you I'm not going to answer you, and why?

 

[Kenny'sID]

To the OP's question:
No, I cannot identify which of the 4 items are designed using ID methodology.

In fact, I dont even think its a fair question, as ID methodology is only meant to apply to biological forms, which those examples are not.

I'll answer that...I like it, and knew something didn't seem right about the question

 

[jacknife]

Anyone else find it funny why any "method" other than common sense would be necessary to know that was ID'd?

And what's even funnier, best I can gather, we aren't allowed to use that obvious method, he actually requires proof. Some things are just clear, or it's called the "Seeing is believing method".

You've out done yourself there, Derwood.

Common sense is all right but has short comings. Common sense will really lead you astry once you start talking about physics and molecules that can pass thrpugh solid objects. Its pretty counter intuative.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Common sense is all right but has short comings. Common sense will really lead you astry once you start talking about physics and molecules that can pass thrpugh solid objects. Its pretty counter intuative.

Fine, but you know what the subject is here...can you tell if that in the picture was ID'd, and do you need anything more than common sense to draw your conclusion?

 

[durangodawood]

Common sense is all right but has short comings. Common sense will really lead you astry once you start talking about physics and molecules that can pass thrpugh solid objects. Its pretty counter intuative.

This^.

Common sense is overrated... especially for events that happen at scales far greater or smaller than the human sensory level.

 

[durangodawood]

Fine, but you know what the subject is here...can you tell if that in the picture was ID'd, and do you need anything more than common sense to draw your conclusion?

Common sense tells me that the carving is designed but the trees and mountain also in the picture are not

 

[Kenny'sID]

Common sense tells me that the carving is designed but the trees and mountain also in the picture are not

I have little doubt that is exactly what you see, that's why the question only pertained to the carving.

 

[jacknife]

Fine, but you know what the subject is here...can you tell if that in the picture was ID'd, and do you need anything more than common sense to draw your conclusion?

I already made a post about how i would go about doing it.

 

[durangodawood]

I have little doubt that is exactly what you see, that's why the question only pertained to the carving.

It would be a remarkable coincidence if the mountain eroded away to reveal 4 perfectly formed faces.... And them all being US presidents, well that just strains credulity!

 

[jacknife]

I have little doubt that is exactly what you see, that's why the question only pertained to the carving.

I think thats @DogmaHunter point though, if you just rely on "it looks designed" then your method will breakdown when ypu get to organic life afterall unlike mt.rushmore biological life dosnt look designed.

 

[durangodawood]

I think thats @DogmaHunter point though, if you just rely on "it looks designed" then your method will breakdown when ypu get to organic life afterall unlike mt.rushmore biological life dosnt look designed.

I dont think so. I mean there is a sort of ID method you can 'apply' to biological systems.

1. examine life form
2. identify instances of multiple interacting components that display "irreducible complexity"
3. assign design as the only other conceivable explanation.

Obviously there are problems with this. I think we all know what they are.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It would be a remarkable coincidence if the mountain eroded away to reveal 4 perfectly formed faces.... And them all being US presidents, well that just strains credulity!

It's so common sensable it makes one wonder why it's even being discussed to begin with.

 

[Steve Petersen]

It would be a remarkable coincidence if the mountain eroded away to reveal 4 perfectly formed faces.... And them all being US presidents, well that just strains credulity!

Entropy.

 

[durangodawood]

Entropy.

Is this part of a knock knock joke?

Ok.

Entropy who?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I think thats @DogmaHunter point though, if you just rely on "it looks designed" then your method will breakdown when ypu get to organic life afterall unlike mt.rushmore biological life dosnt look designed.

But who really relies on something like that? I suppose individual perspective has a lot to do with whether bio life looks designed or not. I can easily see how it might not, but there is also the fact, it's always been here, something that I think has a lot to do with perception on he subject.

 

[jacknife]

But who really relies on something like that? I suppose individual perspective has a lot to do with whether bio life looks designed or not. I can easily see how it might not, but there is also the fact, it's always been here, something that I think has a lot to do with perception on he subject.

I assume by always you mean "been here for as long as humans have been around". Surley thiers a time in earths history where there wasnt biological life.

 

[Speedwell]

But who really relies on something like that? I suppose individual perspective has a lot to do with whether bio life looks designed or not. I can easily see how it might not, but there is also the fact, it's always been here, something that I think has a lot to do with perception on he subject.

Bio life certainly exhibits a high degree of functional complexity. But that is not, in itself, evidence of design.

 

[durangodawood]

Bio life certainly exhibits a high degree of functional complexity. But that is not, in itself, evidence of design.

Which is a bit of an ironical note given that the OP example 4 display zero functional complexity yet gives every indication of having been designed.