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.
"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.
You believe all the rock formations in the OP's post are all deliberate design?
Then I suppose the question becomes how you can tell the difference between direct and indirect design.
How do you know somebody didn't carve them?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?
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.
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.
Kenny, simple question - how do you detect design?
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.
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?
How do you tell any of them were not designed, or whatever your conclusion is here?
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?
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.
The small stone face maybe (with a Dremel tool?), but not the cliff 'face'.
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.
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, 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.
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?