Is it designed?

[xianghua]

But you just said that you can't calculate that.

do you know what "exact chance" means?

So no lottery winner ever won by luck, always by design?

no. because many people plays lotto. so the chance that someone will win is actually very high.

So based on this awesome "logic", we can conclude that winning the lottery, is by design, not by luck.

wrong. see above. but if someone will win a week after week about 1000 times in a row we can conclude that somone help him to win. right?[/QUOTE]

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It is unanswerable, only if the ID proponents are liars.
They say it is a scientific theory that can be used to detect design.

In this thread, I'm asking them to put their money where their mouth is, by asking them to do exactly that: use the theory to "detect design". Demonstrate its usefullness. Demonstrate the methodology. Demonstrate its practical appication.

Meanwhile, almost at page 5 and NOT A SINGLE ONE that even began a decent attempt.

ALL "creationist" replies have been nothing but derailments, dodges, one liners or jumping straight to the conclusion without demonstrating the steps they took to get to the conclusion - even though I literally say in the OP that the conclusion actually is of no interest to me at this point. What interests me in this thread, is a demonstration of the practical application of this so-called scientific theory.


The logical conclusion seems to be what we rational folks have known all along:
It is NOT a scientific theory.
It is NOT a model that can be applied in practice.
It is NOT usefull.
It can NOT detect anything.
It is.... nothing but religion (creationism) disguised in a lab coat.


To all ID proponents: PROVE ME WRONG.

It's only 'religion' because design requires a designer. Many ID proponents accept design but wave off the religion part. And most don't require a 'theory' to plainly see design.

I build many things in my woodshop, most without a formal plan or design. I visualize it then build it. If someone demanded to see the plans before accepting the reality of the projects they would have to see inside my head. Same with ID. I can see the truth of it for myself; no need to jump through the hoops of complicated scientific criteria.

 

[Jimmy D]

Same with ID. I can see the truth of it for myself; no need to jump through the hoops of complicated scientific criteria.

There's no need for you to do it, you believe what you believe, that's fine.

But ID proponents do claim that they observe scientific criteria, so they should be expected to "show their work".

 

[xianghua]

c) you're already using pattern recognition and not probability to determine design.

even if its true so what? we can still detect design in nature and this is the important point.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There's no need for you to do it, you believe what you believe, that's fine.

But ID proponents do claim that they observe scientific criteria, so they should be expected to "show their work".

That's the point. The 'work' is plain to see. Complex systems, such as sight, hearing, etc. don't create themselves. ID sees the forest while evolution only sees trees...endless trees.

 

[pitabread]

even if its true so what? we can still detect design in nature and this is the important point.

The important point (and indeed the point of the OP) is how design is detected. It has nothing to do with probability in this case.

 

[pitabread]

Complex systems, such as sight, hearing, etc. don't create themselves.

Sure they do. One of the most fascinating things about complexity is how it can arise from relatively simple, recursive processes.

 

[pitabread]

no. because many people plays lotto. so the chance that someone will win is actually very high.

The point is that the individual probability of any individual one person winning the lottery is extremely low. This is why probability calculations can be misleading and why they don't apply to things like the faces carved in Mt. Rushmore.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Now use that theory and demonstrate its practical usefullness by applying it to the objects depicted in the OP.

Practical usefulness?

Where was that in the OP? Are you gong to just keep adding to the op's expectations?

I conclude design by using the same conjecture as science often does...ID makes perfect sense.

Now you answer your own question of how you conclude other than design.

 

[DogmaHunter]

do you know what "exact chance" means?

Yes.

I also know that when you are going to say that "x is more probable then y", you are actually required to base that on something - like a probability calculation. It need not be exact-exact. An approximation is enough to say one is more probable then they other if the difference is larger then the reasonable margin of error.

But you don't even have that.
All you have, are declarations. Declarations tailored specifically, to get you to the outcome that you want to have.

no. because many people plays lotto. so the chance that someone will win is actually very high.

Many cliffs and rocks form. More then there are people playing the lottery, actually.
But in any case, so winning to lottery is "not rare enough"?

but if someone will win a week after week about 1000 times in a row we can conclude that somone help him to win. right?

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


More importantly, and unsurprisingly, you forgot to actually answer the question that you were asked, which was the part that actually mattered in the post you are replying to. I'll just repeat it here:

Here's the question: assuming you don't agree that the improbability of being struck by lightning, implies that it was designed with intent if you get struck by lightning, you're going to have to explain from wich level of "improbability" onwards, things can no longer be considered "chance based" and instead cross over into "designed with intent". And you'll be required to give an objective rationale for that line and not make it an arbitrary one.


If you reply to this, then please answer the question and demonstrate how "id theory" can be practically applied to detecting design. Don't skip steps.

And answer the question.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Meh, if you can't be bothered so be it, I tried to help.

Is that what I said? Of course it wasn't, and playing the victim get's you nowhere.

I understand what you said alright.

Your replies indicated just the opposite, and you know it. See see what I mean by waste of time?

As I said to Oldwiseguy, that's fine, but it's not really relevant to the thread,

And there's the ol' "Not relevant" cop out. If they casn't claim and answer wrong, they claim it not relevant.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Again Speedy has explained my objection, your definition is too vague

Let me add to the list from my last post, irrelevant, wrong, or too vague.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's only 'religion' because design requires a designer.

No. It's religion, because it seems to include nothing but religious declarations and no method or testability whatsoever. Just religious statements.

Many ID proponents accept design but wave off the religion part

Really? Where are they? Certainly not in this thread.
Maybe give them a call and ask them to come to this thread and demonstrate how their theory can be usefull in practical application.

And most don't require a 'theory' to plainly see design.

Yes, that's the "declarations" part I was refering to.

I build many things in my woodshop, most without a formal plan or design. I visualize it then build it. If someone demanded to see the plans before accepting the reality of the projects they would have to see inside my head. Same with ID. I can see the truth of it for myself; no need to jump through the hoops of complicated scientific criteria.

No. What people recognise in the objects you manufacture, is evidence of human manufacturing. They know what that looks like. Carved wood, use of bolts, use of screws and nails, etc. They don't recognise design. They recognise manufacturing.

More importantly, all this is off topic.

The only thing that would be on-topic, would be a demonstration of the practical usefullness of ID theory.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Either demonstrate the practical usefullness of the so-called scientific theory of ID, or move on.

Answered in my last reply to you, as well as leaving the comment, now you demonstrate it? Once you do that, maybe we can get a better idea of what you expect from IDr's

 

[DogmaHunter]

even if its true so what? we can still detect design in nature and this is the important point.

Yes, so you keep claiming.
This whole thread is about asking "how".

ID proponents maintain that ID is science and not religion, which can be used to objectively detect design. That is supposed to be the practical application of the "theory".

If that is all true, then there should be clear and unambigous guidelines on how that works. Specific steps one should go through to detect this design. There should be some kind of default method of inquiry, based on the principles of ID theory to objectively detect design.

The OP gives you 4 objects and asks you to demonstrate this method.

Note once more that it is ALL ABOUT THE METHOD. At this point, the conclusion you come up with is of no interest. What is of interest, is how you come to the conclusion.

Demonstrate the method.
Demonstrate the practical usefullness of the so-called theory.

That means: no bare declarations.
Show your work.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Practical usefulness?
Where was that in the OP? Are you gong to just keep adding to the op's expectations?

I'm not adding anything.

Here's a direct quote from the OP:

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.

The word "method" here, refers to whatever "ID theory" supposedly says about how to detect design. Giving a demonstration of this method = demonstrating the practical usefullness of ID.

If the demo fails, then the "theory" has no practical usefullness.

I conclude design by using the same conjecture as science often does...ID makes perfect sense.

Cool. Explain it.
That's what the OP is asking.

It's hilarious how we're 5 pages in and we keep hearing you guys repeat that design can be detected over and over again, and I keep asking HOW.
The response is the same everything. A restating of the declaration that it can be done, but never is it shown / demonstrated how exactly it can be done.

Now you answer your own question of how you conclude other than design.

LOL!

Ultimate dodge.


If you aren't planning on explaining exactly how design can supposedly be detected by using ID theory - don't bother replying.

 

[Kenny'sID]

wrong. see above. but if someone will win a week after week about 1000 times in a row we can conclude that somone help him to win. right?

You have to understand how they work. Rational conclusion is fine when dealing with such as evolution, bit when the adversary tries to use it, nope, not allowed.

It's like the rational conclusion God did it over it just happened. And that is about as rational as it gets, so rational, I'm almost embarrassed for someone I have to spell it out for. But no, that not allowed. They are loaded with self proclaimed conveniences just like that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Answered in my last reply to you

You most certainly didn't.
You just declared that ID can detect design.

We all know you guys claim that.
The OP is asking HOW.

4 objects are shown. Run them through "the ID method of design detection" and explain how that works. Teach me the "how to detect design" method according the supposedly scientific ID principles. In such a way that I too can do it.

I don't understand why you people are so reluctant to show you work.

, as well as leaving the comment, now you demonstrate it?

In this thread, I'm an idiot who just wants to learn.
Explain to me how ID can be used to detect design.

Don't just declare that it can be done.
EXPLAIN HOW it can be done.

Once you do that, maybe we can get a better idea of what you expect from IDr's

I expect them to put their money where their mouth is.
They claim that the ID model can be used to detect design.
Well, demonstrate how.

I gave you 4 objects. Apply the ID method to them and explain step by step how that works.


Why so reluctant to do that?

Could it perhaps be that ID theory isn't actually a theory with practical application and that the ID movement simply isn't being honest about what it really is about?



(almost at page 6 - still not even an attempt at demonstrating how ID can be used to detect design, lot's of excuses though).

 

[DogmaHunter]

You have to understand how they work. Rational conclusion is fine when dealing with such as evolution, bit when the adversary tries to use it, nope, not allowed.

It's like the rational conclusion God did it over it just happened. And that is about as rational as it gets, so rational, I'm almost embarrassed for someone I have to spell it out for. But no, that not allowed. They are loaded with self proclaimed conveniences just like that.

This thread isn't about evolution nore is it about gods.

It's about ID proponents claiming that ID is a scientific theory, which has as practical application that it can objectively detect design.

All I'm asking, is to demonstrate exactly that. To explain step by step how that works.

Nobody seems to be able to.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sure they do. One of the most fascinating things about complexity is how it can arise from relatively simple, recursive processes.

In other words...magic.