Is it designed?

[DogmaHunter]

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.

B.

C.

D.

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

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"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.

 

[xianghua]

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

we can only be sure for image d. why? because the chance to get this shape by a natural process is extremely low. this is why we can conclude design.

 

[RDKirk]

I've been a proponent of intelligent design since the early 60s.

The cool thing about ID is that it doesn't actually require convincing anyone of anything.

However you want to conceive the mechanics of how the creation of the universe occurred...fine.

 

[DogmaHunter]

we can only be sure for image d. why? because the chance to get this shape by a natural process is extremely low. this is why we can conclude design.

Please share your probability calculation for every picture to demonstrate this.
EDIT: also, are you saying that the chance of getting the others is high? Don't forget to support your answers with a probability calculation.

 

[Steve Petersen]

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.

Looks like it it headed that way again.

 

[DogmaHunter]

"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.

That's just a useless declaration and not at all a demonstration of applying the supposedly scientific model of ID.

I think I was clear in my OP that I'm looking for an example of applying the ID methodology. I actually don't even care about the conclusions. It's all about the application of ID "theory".

 

[tas8831]

I've been a proponent of intelligent design since the early 60s.

The cool thing about ID is that it doesn't actually require convincing anyone of anything.

However you want to conceive the mechanics of how the creation of the universe occurred...fine.

So, you cannot address the OP, despite nearly 60 years of being a proponent of ID..

Got it.

 

[tas8831]

"Natural" processes were also designed.

Assertions devoid of evidence can be, rightly, ignored or dismissed.

This isn't church - your bland, lame proclamations hold no weight here.

 

[durangodawood]

"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.

Did someone design example A or C to look like faces?

 

[Speedwell]

So, you cannot address the OP, despite nearly 60 years of being a proponent of ID..

Got it.

No, you don't get it. Neither do most ID proponents. What RDKirk is saying boils down to the fact that ID is an unfalsifiable proposition. If you are a theist you believe, one way or another, that God "designed" the universe and its contents, including us. On the other hand, that does not require that science is "wrong" or that the conclusions of science must be somehow different if God exists than if He doesn't.

The thing with IDists is that they want to prove that there is design in natural objects, because they want to shove their theology and their political agenda up our noses.

 

[RDKirk]

No, you don't get it. Neither do most ID proponents. What RDKirk is saying boils down to the fact that ID is an unfalsifiable proposition. If you are a theist you believe, one way or another, that God "designed" the universe and its contents, including us. On the other hand, that does not require that science is "wrong" or that the conclusions of science must be somehow different if God exists than if He doesn't.

Yes, precisely.

The thing with IDists is that they want to prove that there is design in natural objects, because they want to shove their theology and their political agenda up our noses.

Which I'm happy to avoid.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, you don't get it. Neither do most ID proponents. What RDKirk is saying boils down to the fact that ID is an unfalsifiable proposition. If you are a theist you believe, one way or another, that God "designed" the universe and its contents, including us. On the other hand, that does not require that science is "wrong" or that the conclusions of science must be somehow different if God exists than if He doesn't.

The thing with IDists is that they want to prove that there is design in natural objects, because they want to shove their theology and their political agenda up our noses.

This thread is addressed at those people who claim that ID is a scientific theory and that it can be used in practical application to distinguish artificial design from natural formation.

The OP asks of those people to apply said method to the objects shown in the pictures.
Initially, I don't even care about what they conclude.

I just want to see the model being applied in practice and how that goes.

 

[juvenissun]

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

Cases A, B, C are designed by God. How? It goes beyond your understanding. So, don't bother.
Case D is designed by man.

 

[Jimmy D]

Cases A, B, C are designed by God. How? It goes beyond your understanding. So, don't bother.
Case D is designed by man.

As a geologist could you not attempt to explain how B was formed, by natural forces?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Assertions devoid of evidence can be, rightly, ignored or dismissed.

This isn't church - your bland, lame proclamations hold no weight here.

I didn't expect they would.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Did someone design example A or C to look like faces?

No more than a 'Cheeto' was designed to look like a chameleon.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The thing with IDists is that they want to prove that there is design in natural objects, because they want to shove their theology and their political agenda up our noses.

If that's true wouldn't it be in the news more.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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

Where there is purpose there is design.

 

[durangodawood]

Where there is purpose there is design.

How do you determine where there is purpose?