Why would I ask questions if I already have the answers?
Oh your saying you would never do that. Hilarious!
Do you have the answer for our existence? And what would that answer be?
Upvote
0
Why would I ask questions if I already have the answers?
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.
It may as well be, seeing as how IC is just a sort of ad hoc explanation which means, roughly, "I dont know".That's not what IC means.
What is the question?....Do you have the answer for our existence?....
What about this? Was this designed or was it naturally formed?
Design is detectable 2 ways:Please be clear on how they detect it and how you detect it.
What does "the answer for our existence" mean?The comment that ended in a question mark.
I think my question is clear enough.
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:
ID proponents insist that the "d" does not necessarily refer to a god.
That's called an argument from ignorance.
Asking for a demonstration of what is supposed to be a scientific theory, is a "stumper"?
You'ld think it's a simple question...................
Page 8. No answers.
You'ld think it's a simple question...................
Page 8. No answers.
What does "the answer for our existence" mean?
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.
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.Please be clear on how they detect it and how you detect it.
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.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
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.
They can if they want, but in science, the conclusions of deductive logic have to be verified empirically.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?
Sounds like you're still on a theism v. atheism kick. That's not what this discussion is about.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?
They can if they want, but in science, the conclusions of deductive logic have to be verified empirically.
Sounds like you're still on a theism v. atheism kick. That's not what this discussion is about.
"Do your best."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.
You got a better answer?