Is it designed?

[OldWiseGuy]

The only thing that would be on-topic, would be a demonstration of the practical usefullness of ID theory.

Would my peace of mind and satisfaction with the theory qualify? You know there is a lot of mental confusion these days over such subjects.

 

[Jimmy D]

Let me add to the list from my last post, irrelevant, wrong, or too vague.

Or you could try answering the OP. Good luck!

 

[Kenny'sID]

This thread isn't about evolution nore is it about gods.

It's about ID proponents claiming that ID is a scientific theory, which has as practical application that it can objectively detect design.

Give me an example of an intelligent designer?

It's about ID proponents claiming that ID is a scientific theory, which has as practical application that it can objectively detect design.

All I'm asking, is to demonstrate exactly that. To explain step by step how that works.

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?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Or you could try answering the OP. Good luck!

You still aren't paying attention, but a least now you're keeping your time wasting posts short...thank you.

 

[Jimmy D]

Is that what I said? Of course it wasn't, and playing the victim get's you nowhere.



Your replies indicated just the opposite, and you know it. See see what I mean by waste of time?



And there's the ol' "Not relevant" cop out. If they casn't claim and answer wrong, they claim it not relevant.

I can see you’re getting distracted by my observations so I’ll let you crack on with discussing the merits of ID.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I can see you’re getting distracted by my observations so I’ll let you crack on with discussing the merits of ID.

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.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

How do you tell which of those four pictures is of a designed object?

Oh, I know, it was all "designed," but that's just theism. ID claims more. ID claims to be able to show which of those objects were formed by natural forces and which were shaped intentionally. How?

 

[pitabread]

In other words...magic.

I suppose math and/or physics is magical to some.

 

[Kenny'sID]

How do you tell which of those four pictures is of a designed object?

Oh, I know, it was all "designed," but that's just theism. ID claims more. ID claims to be able to show which of those objects were formed by natural forces and which were shaped intentionally. How?

How do you tell any of them were not designed, or whatever your conclusion is here?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I suppose math and/or physics is magical to some.

Beating the mathematical odds could be considered magical.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A.
View attachment 246814

Some people see faces in rocks, others see 'eyespots' in primitive organisms. Same/same.

 

[pitabread]

Beating the mathematical odds could be considered magical.

Probability isn't relevant here.

 

[Speedwell]

How do you tell any of them were not designed, or whatever your conclusion is here?

I couldn't tell from the pictures. I would have to examine the objects more closely, perhaps with the aid of an expert geologist. Take a close-up look at the Mt. Rushmore sculptures, for instance . The chisel marks alone make "design" an easy call, but you can't see any of that in the picture.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Probability isn't relevant here.

I think a broader context is always helpful. For example, God designed and created the rocks in the OP's examples. So the 'faces' that appear accidently are unimportant...in the broader context.

 

[pitabread]

I think a broader context is always helpful. For example, God designed and created the rocks in the OP's examples. So the 'faces' that appear accidently are unimportant...in the broader context.

You believe all the rock formations in the OP's post are all deliberate design?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

Ah, the traditional catch-all - GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways); we don't often see that in the science forums.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I couldn't tell from the pictures. I would have to examine the objects more closely, perhaps with the aid of an expert geologist. Take a close-up look at the Mt. Rushmore sculptures, for instance . The chisel marks alone make "design" an easy call, but you can't see any of that in the picture.

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?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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?

Kenny, simple question - how do you detect design?

 

[Speedwell]

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?

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.

 

[juvenissun]

Ah, the traditional catch-all - GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways); we don't often see that in the science forums.

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.