- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Try me.
You mean, I asked follow up questions you didn't like?
So, I'm just supposed to accept what you say and stay quite if I have questions?
Upvote
0
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.
I said you are not able to take it.
I have explained the case A and it is like to talk to a deaf.
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.
So you can't really tell design from non-design. Instead, you can just tell probable from improbable?
Try me.
You mean, I asked follow up questions you didn't like?
So, I'm just supposed to accept what you say and stay quite if I have questions?
its ex post facto calculation so its irrelevant.
actually any option is possile in such a case and one possibility most happen so the chance is actually 1-1.
but not so in the case of finding 100$ a day after day 1000 days in a row.
id only say that we can detect design in natue. and this is true.
Your question is NOT a follow up question. You do not understand my explanation.
Ask a precise question!
Actually, I did ask a follow up question. Or clarification, rather.
Your "explanation" seemed to be that "because the rock in A is uniques compared to the others, you conclude design".
I asked about if "uniqueness" is then the criteria by which you conclude if something is designed or not.
Yes. The uniqueness is (could be) the evidence of design.
(Although I am not sure what does "design" mean. What should I show in order to suggest anything is designed?)
The rock is out of place. It should not be there, but it is there. Why?
Which is it? "is" or "could"?
And if "could", on what is it dependend?
And in both cases: why is uniqueness evidence of design, ever?
So you find yourself on the "creation and evolution" forum, in a thread about recognising design in context of Intelligent Design Theory and.... you're telling me you aren't sure on what "design" means? Really?
It rather sounds as if you simply aren't aware of what ID is supposed to be according to the people who conjured it up.Yes, that is what I am telling you.
I gave you the basics about the rock. How would this info be used to say yes or no to ID? I don't know. You tell me what you like to see in order to make it be or not be an evidence of ID.
This may suggest your OP is not a good one to attack ID.
It rather sounds as if you simply aren't aware of what ID is supposed to be according to the people who conjured it up.
So in short, if you aren't an ID proponent, then the OP isn't addressed to you.
While I am not finished with image A, I will not explain to you anything about B and C.
Anyone who supports "Intelligent design theory".
There you go again, pretending the question in the OP was addressed to any supporter, when it was only addressed to those that made certain claims. Here, let me try again...
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
There you go again, pretending the question in the OP was addressed to any supporter, when it was only addressed to those that made certain claims. Here, let me try again...
If no one here made those claims in the OP, and since you cannot point them out after being asked several times, then I have to assume they are not here, then the OP is not answerable, because those who met the criteria to answer it, aren't here. It's a very simple concept.
And the reason I point that out is you have shown signs of being victorious because no one can answer, when in reality, you can't expect an answer for the reasons just given..
Do you understand now? See, it's a lot like evolution, they add an almost unnoticed twist here and there, until it appears in their own minds there is something real, when, actually, there is nothing there at all...they only deluded themselves into thinking there was.
I already explained why ID is misapplied in your OP.The OP is addressed to followers of ID. To ID proponents.
Here is my exact quote from the OP:
In this thread, I'ld like to have ID proponents to apply their "id theory" to a couple of examples...
I have no idea what you find so confusing about any of this.
Why just to life forms?I already explained why ID is misapplied in your OP.
Its a conjecture thats meant to be applied to life forms.... not to rock or other things.
Because it doesnt work for other forms... as we can see with the current 4 examples.Why just to life forms?
You'ld have a point, if it wasn't for ID proponents themselves giving examples of non-living things on multiple occasions.Because it doesnt work for other forms... as we can see with the current 4 examples.
ID was never conceived as anything but and explanation for certain natural forms.
(Of course I think it doesnt work for natural forms either. But at least you see how someone might make that mistake).
See Paley's watch, for example.if it wasn't for ID proponents themselves giving examples of non-living things on multiple occasions
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?