Is it designed?

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Because I detect design in a different way than IDists claim to be able to do. Form is not enough for me.

But maybe I'm wrong about how ID theory detects design. If I'm wrong it's up to you and the other IDists here to tell us how ID theory detects design, but none of you seem to be able to.

Please be clear on how they detect it and how you detect it.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟427,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Please be clear on how they detect it and how you detect it.
Design is detectable 2 ways:
1. by inference: objects or processes for which there is no known or potential natural explanation.
2. by aesthetic judgement: the object bears the marks of known designers.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I think my question is clear enough.

ID proponents say that ID is a proper scientific theory that enables them to detect design when design is present.

I'm just asking how that works.
Again, what do you not understand about my question?[/QUOTE]

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.

And in addition, though it may or may not be relevant in your view, and though I expect not in your view because that's the easiest for you to answer, I think it's is relevant, but who really cares? Why not answer if you can, its not as if irrelevant things haven been discussed on threads before. How did those things in the pictures get there to begin with? See, as I explained earlier, I think you are asking questions that are convenient to you here, but not asking the right ones so answer one that is not by design convenient for you, or in my view, the right questions.

In this thread, 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 (or not) using this method.

Please apply this "method" to the following objects:

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

ID proponents insist that the "d" does not necessarily refer to a god.

Ok now your going to back peddle to "not necessarily". That's all I need to hear, and you got why I introduced God into this all along.

That's called an argument from ignorance.

And that's a comment of convenience, but no matter, if I'm ignorant, can you set me straight?

Asking for a demonstration of what is supposed to be a scientific theory, is a "stumper"?

No, you only think it is... again, you need to pay attention to what you are replying to, and in this case, the term so-called.

You'ld think it's a simple question...................

Page 8. No answers.

Of course you got an answer, you aren't telling the truth again, but not much sense in expecting any changes there so, moving on. How do you detect other than design? Or didn't I already ask you that? and how many pages ago was that?

Now, please answer the question.

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. Have any of those who made the claim there is a process to prove ID, even seen your post? If not, in essence, you may be asking a question of someone who hasn't even seen it (those who actually made the claim) yet like right here, and I repeat your post....

You'ld think it's a simple question...................

Page 8. No answers.

.....you act as though you have reason to even expect an answer when you may well not, and on top of that you appear to think you have already proven a point when that may all be in your mind because you failed to consider certain details there. Again, if you don't understand what I'm telling you there, just ask.

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? 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.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What does "the answer for our existence" mean?

Just read it in context and if you still can't figure it out then I'm going to have to assume your being contrary, and I honestly have enough of that to deal with already, so do the best you can with it or not.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Design is detectable 2 ways:
1. by inference: objects or processes for which there is no known or potential natural explanation.
2. by aesthetic judgement: the object bears the marks of known designers.

Not sure what side you fall on here, but can you answer the OP's question?
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Please be clear on how they detect it and how you detect it.
I detect design by examining the object for evidence of intentional manufacture; tool marks, mold lines, refined or non-natural materials, that kind of thing.

IDists, so far as I can tell, having nothing beyond "Looks designed to me." however much they dress it up in sciency-sounding talk.

That's what this thread is about: to see if they actually have a method.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

jacknife

Theophobic troll
Oct 22, 2014
2,046
849
✟171,314.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Hey there folks

I've tried this several times on this forum already over the years. Every time though, it ended up in a beat-around-the-bush fest.

Let's see if it goes differently this time.
In this thread, 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 (or not) using this method.

Please apply this "method" to the following objects:

A.
View attachment 246814

B.
View attachment 246815

C.
View attachment 246816

D.
View attachment 246817


Please use "ID methodology" to determine which one of these was designed and which were naturally formed.

If you can't for some reason, please explain that reason.

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.

I look forward to the arguments.

Tnx
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.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
IDists, so far as I can tell, having nothing beyond "Looks designed to me." however much they dress it up in sciency-sounding talk.

Bare with me here.

But that's not all they have, there are other ways of determining these things. Seems the norm is saying evolution (for instance) is allowed to use logic, as a matter of fact they use it to make many a huge jump from here to there...they assume, but...it's not allowed for creationists/ID proponents. Since science/evolutionists assumes (actually uses logic) so much, why not allow the other side to make a very simple and completely obvious jump on the basis of assumption? By assuming the most logical/obvious thing in the world, "If it's here it had to be put here by something" Is that not the type jump evolutionists use often?

What does that have to do with this? First the use of the logic playing field would have to be leveled, then those questions would need to be asked first, as in before the OP's question, and answered with logic if nothing else is available, and once the only possible logical conclusion were drawn, It has to be design, the op's question would already be answered, as in the first answer I put on this thread... it is no mystery as far as I'm concerned. And again, mine is just as fair an assumption as some use to make their case for evolution being a fact.

That's what this thread is about: to see if they actually have a method.

Yeah, I'm still trying to find those that claimed that. I assume they are here since that is where the question was posed, so maybe someone who did claim what the OP claimed they claimed, will step up?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Bare with me here.

But that's not all they have, there are other ways of determining these things. Seems the norm is saying evolution (for instance) is allowed to use logic, as a matter of fact they use it to make many a huge jump from here to there...they assume, but...it's not allowed for creationists/ID proponents. Since science/evolutionists assumes (actually uses logic) so much, why not allow the other side to make a very simple and completely obvious jump on the basis of assumption?
They can if they want, but in science, the conclusions of deductive logic have to be verified empirically.
By assuming the most logical/obvious thing in the world, "If it's here it had to be put here by something" Is that not the type jump evolutionists use often?
Sounds like you're still on a theism v. atheism kick. That's not what this discussion is about.

]
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
They can if they want, but in science, the conclusions of deductive logic have to be verified empirically.

But then it wouldn't be assumption. Are you saying it always is verified in evolution? If so, I'll let you know next time I notice that is absolutely not the case.

Sounds like you're still on a theism v. atheism kick. That's not what this discussion is about.

Na, that's all you choose to see, I was very clear, but next time I won't bother, I will know If you can't deal with what was said, you'll only dismiss it with a lame excuse such as that, and that leaves nothing to really debate.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟427,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Just read it in context and if you still can't figure it out then I'm going to have to assume your being contrary, and I honestly have enough of that to deal with already, so do the best you can with it or not.
"Do your best."

Thats the answer for our existence.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums