Is it designed?

[Kenny'sID]

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

I would agree

"Looks" designed, or concluded ID just by the way it appears was more what was being said there...something I'd never go by except in obvious circumstances such as the carving pic.

 

[xianghua]

But in any case, so winning to lottery is "not rare enough"?

correct.

Yes. And do you know why? Because we can actually calculate the probability of that.

so what? you cant for instance calculate what is the chance that a person will find 100$ day after day 1000 days in a row. but you know that the chance for that is very low and therefore you will still conclude that someone help this person to get money, right?

as for your lighting analogy: we cant point the exact limit between design vs not design but we can point where is extremely unlikely that such an event will happen by chance.

 

[pitabread]

ou cant for instance calculate what is the chance that a person will find 100$ day after day 1000 days in a row. but you know that the chance for that is very low

Why would we conclude something based on something that we can't calculate? Do you not see the problem with that?

Besides, I think it would actually be pretty easy to find $100 a day. You just need to know where to look.

 

[Speedwell]

I would agree

"Looks" designed, or concluded ID just by the way it appears was more what was being said there...something I'd never go by except in obvious circumstances such as the carving pic.

Which is why you are a Creationist rather than an IDist.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you like to see the "method" by which IDer used to show the design of the rock in case A?

Was that not clear?
I only restated the exact purpose of the challenge of the OP a couple dozen times, several times of which in reply to your posts....................

If so, I am not answering your question. First, I am not an IDer. Second I do not know any method of ID.

Okay.
Move on then.

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.

How are you planning to do that, since you just said that you have no method of doing that?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

By repurposing function of the various parts. This happens all the time in evolution.
It's been shown plenty times over how such processes end up in what IDists call "irc" things.

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'..

Evolution idd doesn't "try", since there is no intent.
Through natural selection, systems develop to fit neatly into the niche in which they need to survive.

But that's besides the point of the OP. This thread is not about evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Silly question, how can anyone know one way or the other without close examination?

Let's say you get the opportunity to closely examine it.
What would you be looking for?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Try to pay attention for one moment here, will you please answer the question? That being your explanation of why it's not ID and (since it's not in your view) your take on the same question you ask of us, I'll quote it below for clarity. IOW, if it is not ID (God, gods, or whatever) then using your own "method", please explain the "or not" in your question that I quote below. Are you still with me here? All completely relevant as in whats good for the goose and all. Why? because you say it's not design.

It doesn't matter what I think. The question of the OP is about the claims of IDists.

See, as I explained earlier, I think you are asking questions that are convenient to you here

No. I'm just calling out IDists on the very claims that they make.
They claim to be able to detect artificial design in objects based on their ID theory. I'm just asking them to demonstrate that. That's all.

Apparantly, you have a problem with that?

, but not asking the right ones so answer one that is not by design convenient for you, or in my view, the right questions.

How can my question be "wrong"?
IDists claim that they can detect design in objects based on their ID theory.
So, I'm giving them some objects and asking them how they can use ID theory to detect design in those objects.

What's the problem?
They claim they can do it, I'm asking them to actually do it and show their work.

I don't only need that as clarification for what you are asking of us, but to put you in the same position as you seem to be trying to put others in.

You are more then welcome to create a thread where you ask me to provide demonstrations of my claims. This thread is about the claims of IDists.

You say they (and BTW, is "they" even us? who here made the claim?) make certain claims and you are trying to make whoever did that prove their claims, and that's fine

"they" are ID proponents. Those who claim that ID is a proper theory with practical application, as opposed to religious ideas.

, but surely you too have an explanation/process to prove your take on things

Sure. But this thread is not about my ideas. It's about the ideas of IDists.
Again, you are welcome to create another thread where you reverse the roles and I'll be happy to participate.

This thread however, is about the claims of IDists.

You say others made these claims and need to back them up, so all I'm asking is you do the same. Now, do you understand the question, and if not, please say so and I'll try again for what good it will do, but I have gone through great pains here to do my best to let you know precisely what I need and why.

I understand the question. This thread is just about another question.
You're just distracting from the actual thread topic.

Ok now your going to back peddle to "not necessarily".

No "back peddling". I never said otherwise. It is well known that ID-ists claim that the D doesn't necessarily need to be a God. We all know that that's not what they truelly believe, but I'll run with it. It doesn't matter to the question in the OP, which is just about detecting design based on the so-called theory of ID.

Of course you got an answer, you aren't telling the truth again,

No. Nobody as of yet has taken up the effort of properly answering the question of the OP. Nobody has produced the ID process of detecting design. The "answers" that were given ALL skipped that step and went straight to their conclusion - while I'm asking specifically about the process that takes them to that conclusion. The process, that is the method of ID to detect design.

How do you detect other than design? Or didn't I already ask you that? and how many pages ago was that?

This thread is about ID theory and how it helps in detecting design.

Now, please answer the question.

Not in this thread. Create your own thread. I'll happily answer there.
In fact, I was planning myself on creating a "reverse" thread of this one at some point, where I'ld invite non-ID proponents to give me their rational of detecting design in the 4 objects of the OP. Just to demonstrate the contrast in quality of answers. I'll bet you that we'll get proper answers on page 1.

One more serious problem with that post, with your original question and your expectations. You seem elated by the fact no one has answered, so will you please explain who here made the claim you are asking them to prove? I know it wasn't me.

Plenty of people, including you, have mentioned "intelligent design" and related stuff like "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" (fyi: isn't it strange that NOT A SINGLE PERSON has even mentioned that in this thread, while they are well known integral parts of ID "theory"???) in plenty of topics before.

When trying to argue against evolution in evolution threads, these terms fall all the time and people keep mentioning them all the time.
But when we reverse the roles and create a thread SPECIFICALLY about ID, then suddenly nobody is an IDist.

Again, very telling.

.....you act as though you have reason to even expect an answer

I don't expect an answer. Because I happen to know that ID is a void concept which is nothing more or less then plain old faith based creationism disguised in a lab coat.

The thread just rubs it in.

Any IDists who disagrees can prove me wrong by actually answering the OP.

and on top of that you appear to think you have already proven a point

Every new dodging post, like the one I'm currently replying to, is in fact the point being proven more and more.

That point being: there's no such thing as ID theory. It's a void religious concept that has nothing to do with science and it's anything but capable of "detecting design".
It's dishonest religious nonsense, carefully designed to sound science-y, but which couldn't be further removed from science if it tried.

Any IDist that disagrees, can prove me wrong by actually answering the OP.

But too make sure of where we're at here, can you please point out those here who made the claim you are asking us to verify in the op?

The claim that through "ID theory" one can detect design, is an integral part of the concept of ID. It is the whole concept of ID. It is, what ID is.

In the same way that "speciation happens" is an integral part of evolutiont theory. So simply by identifying as an "evolutionist", you implicitly agree that speciation happens.
In the exact same way, if you identify as an ID proponent, you implicitly agree that ID can be used to detect design in objects.

If none are here, then I say, get over yourself, you proven nothing by claiming no answers, but if there is someone here that made the claim, please say who, so I can look at their answer to see if your "Page 8, no answer" claim means something or nothing at all.

If nobody here is an ID proponent, that's cool.
But then you all should stop mentioning ID or any of the principles associated with it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Let's say you get the opportunity to closely examine it.
What would you be looking for?

You don't get to ask all the questions and not answer those posed to you, it's just not a fair exchange, so answer or don't ask...fair enough?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Im going to go ahead and take a stab at this. If i were to try and determine a design in one of these id examine them closley for tool marks. In addition id also examine thier enviorment to try and determine which one of these is more likley simple erosion. This is the best i can think of and even then this idea has problems.

Cool. But that doesn't seem to be the method based on "ID theory".

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

There are still criteria on which that "common sense" is based.

IDists claim to have criteria by which they can detect design.
I'm asking to demonstrate those criteria.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Plenty of people, including you,

And there you go, doing it again. I made no such claim as you are accusing us of in the OP. Or better yet, if I/anyone else on this whole forum made the claim you ask us to answer too in the OP, can you please show us?

See, this acting as if you've asked a question no one can answer when you have absolutely no reason to expect an answer, and after my asking time and time again where are those who claimed they could answer, you failed time and time again providing that information, well...That's just strange.

No. I'm just calling out IDists on the very claims that they make.

where are the ones that made the claim you claim they did?

It doesn't matter what I think. The question of the OP is about the claims of IDists.

So...but if can't answer, no one will try to force you

They claim to be able to detect artificial design in objects based on their ID theory. I'm just asking them to demonstrate that. That's all.

is "they here? Can you please point them out?

How can my question be "wrong"?
IDists claim that they can detect design in objects based on their ID theory.

Again, who on this board made that claim?

What's the problem?
They claim they can do it, I'm asking them to actually do it and show their work.

They, who?

You are more then welcome to create a thread where you ask me to provide demonstrations of my claims. This thread is about the claims of IDists.

Have you ever gotten off topic or ask questions not pertaining to an op? If so, why is that a problem now? As if we don't know why.

"they" are ID proponents. Those who claim that ID is a proper theory with practical application, as opposed to religious ideas.

I have not seen any of those "theys" yet and you have still failed to point them out.

Sure. But this thread is not about my ideas. It's about the ideas of IDists.

No "back peddling".

Absolutely back peddling. I've told you before about knee jerk claims, and proven you were often dead wrong and untruthful....you're doing it again

No. Nobody as of yet has taken up the effort of properly answering the question of the OP.

That's because no one here claimed such a thing you accuse them of. Seems to me you would have caught on to that by now....amazing

Not in this thread.

Why not, the OP is out of place, so why not at least try to make something good come out of it?

Plenty of people, including you, have mentioned "intelligent design" and related stuff like "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity"

Why are you telling me that? What's it have to do with anything

I don't expect an answer. Because I happen to know that ID is a void concept which is nothing more or less then plain old faith based creationism disguised in a lab coat.

Of course you don't, you are asking the wrong people...hello?

Every new dodging post, like the one I'm currently replying to, is in fact the point being proven more and more.

You mean the point you have no answers to a question you have no business expecting and answer too?

The claim that through "ID theory" one can detect design, is an integral part of the concept of ID. It is the whole concept of ID. It is, what ID is.

And there that claim of claims is again.

If nobody here is an ID proponent, that's cool.

Hilarious move, dude.

See how you reduced a much different subject, i guess you finally realized didn't fit to something completely different?

We saw that.

 

[Kenny'sID]

IDists claim to have criteria by which they can detect design.
I'm asking to demonstrate those criteria.

Did I ask you who those IDst's were yet? Did you ever point them out?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

It's "common sensable" for the sake of simplicity.
For other objects, it's much less "common sensable" - like the objects for which "ID theory" was invented, like living organisms.

So for a demonstration of ID theory, I choose "simple" examples that we probably all can agree on. If the application of the "theory" already fails for these easy objects, like it seems to - since there isn't even a single example yet of such application given, then we can safely say that it won't work for more dificult, less "common sensable" objects either..........


In other words, I choose simple objects to make it extra easy on IDists to demonstrate their method of detecting design.

But apparantly, it's already too dificult....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Did I ask you who those IDst's were yet? Did you ever point them out?

Anyone who supports "Intelligent design theory".

 

[DogmaHunter]

correct.

So what's the barrier then?

How rare must something be before it can be concluded to being "design"?
What's the magic number?

so what? you cant for instance calculate what is the chance that a person will find 100$ day after day 1000 days in a row. but you know that the chance for that is very low and therefore you will still conclude that someone help this person to get money, right?

I also can't calculate what the chance was of the unique string of events from, let's say, 1000 years ago till today, which would accumulate / result in us having this conversation.

I mean... think of all the things that had to fall into place for that to happen?
All the people that had to survive, meet and create off spring which would result in you and me being alive today, as well as all the people who actually created this platform and the technologies used etc. Considering that even only the chance of ME being the result of my parents having sex and the millions of spem cells that had to fail, for the one that resulted in me to win etc etc etc.

The people that had to survive (and NOT survive!) things like the black plague, 2 world wars, etc....

So we can conclude that everything in existance is a set-up and that free choice doesn't exist and that all decisions, actions and events were carefully design, just so we could have this conversation?


Or is that epic string of events from 1000 years ago (since the very beginning of life, actually.......) not "improbable" enough?

as for your lighting analogy: we cant point the exact limit between design vs not design but we can point where is extremely unlikely that such an event will happen by chance.

Haaa....
So you can't really tell design from non-design. Instead, you can just tell probable from improbable?

Eventhough, you also said that you can't actually calculate the probability of the pictures in my OP.

 

[xianghua]

Why would we conclude something based on something that we can't calculate? Do you not see the problem with that?

Besides, I think it would actually be pretty easy to find $100 a day. You just need to know where to look.

and what if it will be in your front door?

 

[DogmaHunter]

And there you go, doing it again. I made no such claim as you are accusing us of in the OP. Or better yet, if I/anyone else on this whole forum made the claim you ask us to answer too in the OP, can you please show us?

Do you read the posts you reply to?
I said you made reference to intelligent design, as if it is a thing.
I also said that identifying as an ID proponent, equals implicitly agree to the claims that are associated with it. Just like identifying as an "evolutionist", implies that you agree that speciation happens.

If you don't identify as an ID proponent, then the question in the OP is not addressed at you.

See, this acting as if you've asked a question no one can answer when you have absolutely no reason to expect an answer, and after my asking time and time again where are those who claimed they could answer, you failed time and time again providing that information, well...That's just strange.

The only strange thing here, is your ability to read and understand what you are reading.
I told you several times who the OP question is addressed to.

If you don't feel like you belong to that group, then what are you discussing about, really?
If you feel like you do belong to that group, then just answer the question.


For crying out loud.

 

[juvenissun]

Was that not clear?
I only restated the exact purpose of the challenge of the OP a couple dozen times, several times of which in reply to your posts....................

Okay.
Move on then.

How are you planning to do that, since you just said that you have no method of doing that?

I said you are not able to take it. I have explained the case A and it is like to talk to a deaf.

 

[DogmaHunter]

and what if it will be in your front door?

Are you again arguing using imaginary evidence?


Let's not loose focus here.
What's the "probability barrier" from which onwards it is safe to conclude design?
What's the magic number and why that number and not a number even more improbably or slightly more probable? In other words, how was this number concluded as being THE number?