Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
To the OP's question: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.
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.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.
This^.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.
Common sense tells me that the carving is designed but the trees and mountain also in the picture are notFine, 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
I already made a post about how i would go about doing it.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?
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!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.I have little doubt that is exactly what you see, that's why the question only pertained to the carving.
I dont think so. I mean there is a sort of ID method you can 'apply' to biological systems.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.
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 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!
Is this part of a knock knock joke?Entropy.
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 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.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.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.
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.Bio life certainly exhibits a high degree of functional complexity. But that is not, in itself, evidence of design.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?