Is it designed?

[Strathos]

"Natural" processes were also designed. In fact there is nothing 'natural' in nature. Everything that exists was designed or is the product of a process that was designed.

Then I suppose the question becomes how you can tell the difference between direct and indirect design.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You believe all the rock formations in the OP's post are all deliberate design?

Not the 'formations' but the rocks themselves. Those 'patterns' were formed by the laws of physics acting upon those rocks; rain, wind, water, friction, heat, cold, etc.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then I suppose the question becomes how you can tell the difference between direct and indirect design.

I guess that depends on your interest. Stone masons need to know the characteristics, the design, of the stone they are working with. Eye doctors need to be totally familiar with the design of the eye.

 

[Speedwell]

Not the 'formations' but the rocks themselves. Those 'patterns' were formed by the laws of physics acting upon those rocks; rain, wind, water, friction, heat, cold, etc.

How do you know somebody didn't carve them?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How do you know somebody didn't carve them?

The small stone face maybe (with a Dremel tool?), but not the cliff 'face'.

 

[pitabread]

Not the 'formations' but the rocks themselves. Those 'patterns' were formed by the laws of physics acting upon those rocks; rain, wind, water, friction, heat, cold, etc.

How could you tell the difference?

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, The ID position is that no such evidence as I would require need be sought for. Form alone should be enough, so the pictures are quite sufficient.

If form alone were enough then why did you need more than the pictured before?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Kenny, simple question - how do you detect design?

Since you already know you lost credibility with me long ago as far as having a reasonable discussion, why don't you move directly to telling me you don't think I know the answer to that and then explaining how it's done.

I might even read your reply.

 

[Jimmy D]

First you make no sense at all, then you try to cover that with more nonsense. Thanks for making a waste of time at least entertaining.

Still discussing my posts and not the methodology of ID?

(If you would like me to explain anything to you that’s fine, it seems that you are the only poster who’s had difficulty making sense of my posts.

If I didn’t know better I would think you are obfuscating to cover your lack of knowledge of ID methodology)

 

[DogmaHunter]

Give me an example of an intelligent designer?

And all I'm asking it you answer your own question so it's clear what you expect from us...is that a problem for you?

LOL!

Dude....................

ID people claim to be able to detect design in objects based on their theory.
All I'm asking is how that works.

I don't know what confuses you about that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How do you tell any of them were not designed, or whatever your conclusion is here?

This thread is about ID theory and how it can be used to detect design.

 

[Jimmy D]

It seems Dembski, Behe and their cohorts wasted their time.

Did no IDers bother studying their work?!?

I’m shocked!

 

[DogmaHunter]

In that case, would it be fair to say you feel the OP is bit out of place here? Or for all intents and purposes, ridiculous to expect the answers asked for, due to most not having reasonable access to the means necessary to conclude a proper answer?

No, not at all.

As I say in the OP, the ANSWER is not important.
What is important, is the METHOD by which the answers are obtained.

If the method requires close-up examination of the objects, then just say so, followed by an explanation of how that examination works. What do you look for? What questions need to be answered? What properties are important? Which tests do you do and why?

Consider asking a paleontologist who claims to be able to detect the age of rocks, to describe / explain how that works. That paleontologist will then go on to explain step by step how age is detected in rocks. What tests are done, what properties are looked for, which questions are asked, etc.

I'm not asking anything more of ID proponents.

They claim that their theory enables them to detect design.
I'm just asking how that works.

The pictures in the OP are just a means to that end, so that we have some examples to work with to illustrate more precisely how it works.


I wonder if any of you are ever going to come around at simply answering the question.

My money is on "no".

 

[DogmaHunter]

You don't get it. Most questions about God (or ID) are science and logic questions. This one is no exception. The only question is whether the one who asked the question really know that much of science. Here we see one who don't, and insisted to be ignorant.

Yes, I am completely ignorant on the subject of how ID theory can be applied in practice.
This is why I ask the OP question. So that I can know/understand and no longer be ignorant.

So, care to give it a shot?
ID proponents claim that ID theory can be used to detect design.
I'm asking to show/explain/demonstrate how that works exactly.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The small stone face maybe (with a Dremel tool?), but not the cliff 'face'.

You are again jumping straight to the conclusion.

For the umpteenth time: the conclusion is of no interest at this point.

HOW do you get to that conclusion when using ID theory?
What steps do you go through?
What questions do you ask?
What tests do you do?
What properties do you look for?
HOW DO YOU DETECT DESIGN based on ID theory????

 

[DogmaHunter]

Meanwhile.....


Page 7 and still not a single proper attempt!!

 

[Kenny'sID]

Still discussing my posts and not the methodology of ID?

(If you would like me to explain anything to you that’s fine, it seems that you are the only poster who’s had difficulty making sense of my posts.

If I didn’t know better I would think you are obfuscating to cover your lack of knowledge of ID methodology)

I can't discuss anything with you unless I can get you to pay attention, but nice try on twisting it all into being a problem with me, I expect nothing less. I think we're done on this thread, entirely too high maintenance.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I can't discuss anything with you unless I can get you to pay attention, but nice try on twisting it all into being a problem with me, I expect nothing less. I think we're done on this thread, entirely too high maintenance.

In this thread, you don't have anything to discuss with anyone.
All I ask is for a demonstration of the practical application of ID theory.

You aren't "done" on this thread. In fact, you didn't even begin on this thread.

All you did, was waste webspace and doing your outmost best to derail the discussion and draw attention away from the question in the OP.

And I keep trying to bring it back to topic.


So, another vain attempt:

ID proponents claim to be able to detect design based on their ID theory.
All I'm asking, is to explain how that works.
What questions are asked?
What tests are done?
What properties are looked for?
In short: how is design detected according to ID theory?

 

[Kenny'sID]

LOL!

Dude....................

ID people claim to be able to detect design in objects based on their theory.
All I'm asking is how that works.

I don't know what confuses you about that.

So you can't answer either of those questions? Are you going to go haywire on me now as well. You said the subject was not about gods, but ID, and I asked you to give me an example of an intelligent designer, I mean if it's not God what is it? if it is God, of course the thread is about God or at the very least it's not taboo to mention him in the discussion.

Can you "demonstrate" your take of what your asking of us, or why it wasn't ID, or whatever you claim it is? Or are you going to claim the usual "irrelevant" cop out? It's just as fair a question as you pose in the OP.

Surely you aren't expecting something from us, you can't provide yourself?

And BTW, who claimed they could detect design in objects? I've never once seen that claim until you said it existed.

Common sense tells me that if the object is even there and you or I are unable to produce it from nothing, let alone not have a clue how it came to be, then it had to be ID, or at least from someone much smarter than us. Sometimes "There is no other explanation" IS an explanation.

So instead of constantly insisting on asking your silly so-called stumpers like some of you have a bad habit of doing, why don't you come down to earth and try a some common sense/common sense questions? Or would that put you at a disadvantage?

 

[juvenissun]

So, care to give it a shot?
ID proponents claim that ID theory can be used to detect design.
I'm asking to show/explain/demonstrate how that works exactly.

In order to know the design, you first need to understand the science of the feature. The sciences for A. B. C. cases are different and are not simple. How much you can learn would mostly depend on your attitude in the conversation. If you offended me, I will stop at any time.

Take case A first. The pebble with head figure is NOT the same as all the other pebbles in the image. Not only the shape is different, the rock type is also different. The head figure could be artificial, and could also be natural. A quick conclusion is that this piece is not native in the environment and was placed there through a special process. So, I will temporarily stop here. These info is probably good enough to suggest the nature of design behind this odd piece of rock.