Is it designed?

[Jimmy D]

what's the big mystery? They were all formed out of something that was ID'd.

"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.

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

I realize that these responses aren't exactly by what you'd call competent exponents of ID, let alone science in general, but they signify that either:

A) Most laymen supporting ID don't actually know what it is.

B) ID is a sciency sounding way of "goddidit".

or

C) ID is a simply a synonym for for natural forces. Example B in the OP for example can be simply explained by understood entirely natural mechanisms like erosion etc.
So basically everything not man made is ID.


It appears that ID is completely useless at explaining anything.

How disappointing.

 

[xianghua]

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.

we cant calculate the exact chance to get that mountain by a natural process but we know for sure that this chance is extremely low. therefore we can conclude design. as for the others objects: we cant know for sure since their shape isnt seems to be so unique.

 

[DogmaHunter]

we cant calculate the exact chance to get that mountain by a natural process

So, when you said that one has more / less chance then the other, you were just making stuff up?

but we know for sure that this chance is extremely low.

But you just said that you can't calculate that. Therefor you can't know it. You can believe it, but you can't know it. Let alone "for sure".

KNOWING the chances of something, would require a valid probability calculation that actually gives you the chance of the thing. That's how you know how probable something is.

therefore we can conclude design.

So anything improbable, is designed?
So no lottery winner ever won by luck, always by design?

After all, it's "improbable" to win the lottery, right?

as for the others objects: we cant know for sure since their shape isnt seems to be so unique.

I challenge you to find me a second cliff that looks exactly like the ones depicted.



In summary: so far, your "method of detecting design" by "practical application of ID theory", seems to be asking the question "is it probable?". And if the answer is "no", then you can conclude design, correct?


So based on this awesome "logic", we can conclude that winning the lottery, is by design, not by luck.

We can also conclude that being struck by lightning is by design, not by luck.

Falling ill from a very rare desease? Design.


You are welcome to refine your methodology and be a little more specific and not skip any steps.

Here's the question: assuming you don't agree that the improbability of being struck by lightning, implies that it was designed with intent if you get struck by lightning, you're going to have to explain from wich level of "improbability" onwards, things can no longer be considered "chance based" and instead cross over into "designed with intent". And you'll be required to give an objective rationale for that line and not make it an arbitrary one.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Give an example?

Was your rock always loose? Where do you think it came from, originally. Were the mountains always mountains, or were they part of the unbroken earth's crust?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I realize that these responses aren't exactly by what you'd call competent exponents of ID, let alone science in general, but they signify that either:

A) Most laymen supporting ID don't actually know what it is.

B) ID is a sciency sounding way of "goddidit".

or

C) ID is a simply a synonym for for natural forces. Example B in the OP for example can be simply explained by understood entirely natural mechanisms like erosion etc.
So basically everything not man made is ID.


It appears that ID is completely useless at explaining anything.

How disappointing.

I like B.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So, when you said that one has more / less chance then the other, you were just making stuff up?



But you just said that you can't calculate that. Therefor you can't know it. You can believe it, but you can't know it. Let alone "for sure".

KNOWING the chances of something, would require a valid probability calculation that actually gives you the chance of the thing. That's how you know how probable something is.



So anything improbable, is designed?
So no lottery winner ever won by luck, always by design?

After all, it's "improbable" to win the lottery, right?



I challenge you to find me a second cliff that looks exactly like the ones depicted.



In summary: so far, your "method of detecting design" by "practical application of ID theory", seems to be asking the question "is it probable?". And if the answer is "no", then you can conclude design, correct?


So based on this awesome "logic", we can conclude that winning the lottery, is by design, not by luck.

We can also conclude that being struck by lightning is by design, not by luck.

Falling ill from a very rare desease? Design.


You are welcome to refine your methodology and be a little more specific and not skip any steps.

Here's the question: assuming you don't agree that the improbability of being struck by lightning, implies that it was designed with intent if you get struck by lightning, you're going to have to explain from wich level of "improbability" onwards, things can no longer be considered "chance based" and instead cross over into "designed with intent". And you'll be required to give an objective rationale for that line and not make it an arbitrary one.

The laws that govern lotteries and lightning strikes were designed. Nothing arbitrary there.

 

[Speedwell]

And you have Atheist beliefs born of faith in what you think is a fact it didn't all come from God, and the reality of that is, it's no more than a "belief" as there is no possible way you could have a clue how it began, yet you claim the thread is not for me/my beliefs, but it is for you and your beliefs.

My belief is no more ridiculous than yours when it comes right down to it, and you need to cover those things before you can even think about getting to your op because it IS part of the equation. ID started it and those things you picture are a result of what happened because of ID, as in my original answer.

Why do you keep trying to make this into a theism vs. atheism debate? It's about IDists vs. everybody else, theists and atheists alike.

 

[tampasteve]

MOD HAT ON​

PLEASE NOTE: this thread has had a minor clean to remove several flaming/goading posts. Please refrain from these type of posts.

As a reminder of the rules:

Flaming and Goading

• Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
• Do not personally attack (insult, belittle, mock, ridicule) other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.
• NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, smileys or post ratings which are clearly meant to goad. Quoting and then editing another members post to change the original meaning, commonly referred to as "fixed it for you" (FIFY), is considered goading.
• Offensive derogatory nicknames and egregious inflammatory comments about public figures may be considered goading.
• Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.
• If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[DogmaHunter]

Was your rock always loose? Where do you think it came from, originally. Were the mountains always mountains, or were they part of the unbroken earth's crust?

I asked for an example, not a bunch of questions.
Because I don't see how it matters either way. You're the one that claimed that it mattered. So explain how and why it matters.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The laws that govern lotteries and lightning strikes were designed.

That's again a conclusion.

Please use ID theory to show/demonstrate how this supposed design was detected.

Nothing arbitrary there.

It is, unless you can demonstrate how ID theory lead you to that conclusion.

 

[Speedwell]

The laws that govern lotteries and lightning strikes were designed. Nothing arbitrary there.

In other words, you're a theistic evolutionist. Why do you support ID?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

In other words, you're a theistic evolutionist. Why do you support ID?

I'm an OEC.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I asked for an example, not a bunch of questions.
Because I don't see how it matters either way. You're the one that claimed that it mattered. So explain how and why it matters.

Every 'turtle' (on the way down) has to be questioned.

 

[Kenny'sID]

A) Most laymen supporting ID don't actually know what it is.

Do you even realize that God is a form of ID? Clearly you do not. This is why I never tout myself an expert because as sure as we do, it backfires. Here ya' go:

in·tel·li·gent de·sign
noun
noun: intelligent design

1. the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

Can't wait to hear sciences alternate definition you evidently have for us but seem to be afraid to back up your comment and tell us what it is....let's have it.

When your posts are no more than an underlying attempt to demean your adversary, I can only take it you have no intelligent reply.

 

[Kenny'sID]

In other words, you're a theistic evolutionist. Why do you support ID?

I can see why that would bother you.

 

[Jimmy D]

Do you even realize that God is a form of ID? Clearly you do not. This is why I never tout myself an expert because as sure as we do, it backfires. Here ya' go:

in·tel·li·gent de·sign
noun
noun: intelligent design

1. the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

Can't wait to hear sciences alternate definition you evidently have for us but seem to be afraid to back up your comment and tell us what it is....let's have it.

When your posts are no more than an underlying attempt to demean your adversary, I can only take it you have no intelligent reply.

Lol, I rest my case. Instead of copying the first vague definition google throws up, why not visit a couple of “official” ID websites and find out?

https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

https://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

I notice that you picked up on one small aspect of my post but ignored the point I was attempting to make...

According to your response to the OP everything, including natural processes such as erosion, are “intelligent design”, which kind of makes a mockery of the ideas that the actual ID Organizations are trying to promote.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Lol, I rest my case. Instead of copying the first vague definition google throws up, why not visit a couple of “official” ID websites and find out?

The first? Why is that a problem? does the 2nd/3rd read any different? Or are you just trying to make it sound as bad as possible when in reality that's what people do for their definitions, they go to a dictionary.

Official? lol you need to post your definition here so all can see it.

According to your response to the OP everything, including natural processes such as erosion, are “intelligent design”, which kind of makes a mockery of the ideas that the actual ID Organizations are trying to promote.

You weren't paying attention when I said those things were a result of ID and not ID itself? Then let me try again:

They were all formed out of something that was ID'd.

 

[Jimmy D]

The first? Why is that a problem? does the 2nd/3rd read any different? Or are you just trying to make it sound as bad as possible when in reality that's what people do for their definitions, they go to a dictionary

Did you read the links?

Whilst not entirely incorrect your definition is too vague, ID is explained in depth by actual proponents of the ID movement if you actually want to learn something.

It’s telling that you would rather quibble over a dictionary definition than actually learn what it’s actually about.

I’m getting a sense of deja vu.

You weren't paying attention when I said those things were a result of ID and not ID itself? Then let me try again:

“They were all formed out of something that was ID'd.”

Wind was “ID’d”, water was “ID’d”, sediment layed down and lithified was “ID’d”? Lol.

I think you entirely missed the point of the OP, Dogma would like you to explain using ID methodology (which is explained in my links) how you detect design. He didn’t ask for a kindergarten level explanation.... “God made it all!”

If you have no idea about the concepts and methodology then maybe this thread isn’t for you.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Did you read the links?

Whilst not entirely incorrect your definition is too vague, ID is explained in depth by actual proponents of the ID movement if you actually want to learn something.

It’s telling that you would rather quibble over a dictionary definition than actually learn what it’s actually about.

I’m getting a sense of deja vu.






“They were all formed out of something that was ID'd.”

Wind was “ID’d”, water was “ID’d”, sediment layed down and lithified was “ID’d”? Lol.

I think you entirely missed the point of the OP, Dogma would like you to explain using ID methodology (which is explained in my links) how you detect design. He didn’t ask for a kindergarten level explanation.... “God made it all!”

If you have no idea about the concepts and methodology then maybe this thread isn’t for you.

All processes are designed, and operate according to physical laws, including sedimentation. God designed gravity to keep the stuff he designed from flying all over the place (and to do other neat things as well).

 

[Speedwell]

I'm an OEC.

The same question applies: if you're an OEC, why do you support ID? OECism is a perfectly respectable theological position; what to you need with a politically motivated fraud?