Is it designed?

[DogmaHunter]

I said you are not able to take it.

Try me.

I have explained the case A and it is like to talk to a deaf.

You mean, I asked follow up questions you didn't like?
So, I'm just supposed to accept what you say and stay quite if I have questions?

 

[xianghua]

I also can't calculate what the chance was of the unique string of events from, let's say, 1000 years ago till today, which would accumulate / result in us having this conversation.

its ex post facto calculation so its irrelevant. actually any option is possile in such a case and one possibility most happen so the chance is actually 1-1. but not so in the case of finding 100$ a day after day 1000 days in a row.

So you can't really tell design from non-design. Instead, you can just tell probable from improbable?

id only say that we can detect design in natue. and this is true.

 

[juvenissun]

Try me.
You mean, I asked follow up questions you didn't like?
So, I'm just supposed to accept what you say and stay quite if I have questions?

Your question is NOT a follow up question. You do not understand my explanation.

Ask a precise question!

 

[DogmaHunter]

its ex post facto calculation so its irrelevant.

That's also the case for the pictures in the OP, I would think?

actually any option is possile in such a case and one possibility most happen so the chance is actually 1-1.

Doesn't the same go for every rock in the pictures? If rocks are going to exist, they're going to exist in a certain way.

but not so in the case of finding 100$ a day after day 1000 days in a row.

How about 3 days in a row? 4? 5? 10?
What's the threshhold and why?

And how about the things in the pictures?

id only say that we can detect design in natue. and this is true.

How can we detect such? By probability of outcomes?
The question remains then: what's the threshold? What's the magic number? How was that threshold obtained? And how do you know when the threshold is reached, since you previously said that you can't calculate the odds of the cliffs in the OP? How then can you know if the threshold was reached?

And also: doesn't only a probability of zero, mean that something is impossible?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Your question is NOT a follow up question. You do not understand my explanation.

Actually, I did ask a follow up question. Or clarification, rather.
Your "explanation" seemed to be that "because the rock in A is uniques compared to the others, you conclude design".

I asked about if "uniqueness" is then the criteria by which you conclude if something is designed or not.

Because if not, then pointing out its uniqueness seems rather pointless.
I also asked you about why, if you feel like to rock is "out of place" in its surroundings, is it not more reasonable to assume that it was just deposited there from elsewhere, instead of deciding that the rock is designed (as opposed to naturally formed).

You never answered those points. Instead, you said you were confused and that you aren't a proponent of "ID theory".

Ask a precise question!

I did.

 

[juvenissun]

Actually, I did ask a follow up question. Or clarification, rather.
Your "explanation" seemed to be that "because the rock in A is uniques compared to the others, you conclude design".

I asked about if "uniqueness" is then the criteria by which you conclude if something is designed or not.

Yes. The uniqueness is (could be) the evidence of design. (Although I am not sure what does "design" mean. What should I show in order to suggest anything is designed?)

The rock is out of place. It should not be there, but it is there. Why?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes. The uniqueness is (could be) the evidence of design.

Which is it? "is" or "could"?
And if "could", on what is it dependend?

And in both cases: why is uniqueness evidence of design, ever?

(Although I am not sure what does "design" mean. What should I show in order to suggest anything is designed?)
The rock is out of place. It should not be there, but it is there. Why?

So you find yourself on the "creation and evolution" forum, in a thread about recognising design in context of Intelligent Design Theory and.... you're telling me you aren't sure on what "design" means? Really?​

 

[juvenissun]

Which is it? "is" or "could"?
And if "could", on what is it dependend?

And in both cases: why is uniqueness evidence of design, ever?

So you find yourself on the "creation and evolution" forum, in a thread about recognising design in context of Intelligent Design Theory and.... you're telling me you aren't sure on what "design" means? Really?​

Yes, that is what I am telling you.
I gave you the basics about the rock. How would this info be used to say yes or no to ID? I don't know. You tell me what you like to see in order to make it be or not be an evidence of ID.

This may suggest your OP is not a good one to attack ID.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, that is what I am telling you.
I gave you the basics about the rock. How would this info be used to say yes or no to ID? I don't know. You tell me what you like to see in order to make it be or not be an evidence of ID.

This may suggest your OP is not a good one to attack ID.

It rather sounds as if you simply aren't aware of what ID is supposed to be according to the people who conjured it up.

So in short, if you aren't an ID proponent, then the OP isn't addressed to you.

 

[juvenissun]

It rather sounds as if you simply aren't aware of what ID is supposed to be according to the people who conjured it up.

So in short, if you aren't an ID proponent, then the OP isn't addressed to you.

It is up to you. I don't know much about ID. But I guess I am still the only one who can explain the images A, B and C in your OP. While I am not finished with image A, I will not explain to you anything about B and C.

 

[DogmaHunter]

While I am not finished with image A, I will not explain to you anything about B and C.

Thank you.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Anyone who supports "Intelligent design theory".

There you go again, pretending the question in the OP was addressed to any supporter, when it was only addressed to those that made certain claims. Here, let me try again...

If no one here made those claims in the OP, and since you cannot point them out after being asked several times, then I have to assume they are not here, then the OP is not answerable, because those who met the criteria to answer it, aren't here. It's a very simple concept.

And the reason I point that out is you have shown signs of being victorious because no one can answer, when in reality, you can't expect an answer for the reasons just given..

Do you understand now? See, it's a lot like evolution, they add an almost unnoticed twist here and there, until it appears in their own minds there is something real, when, actually, there is nothing there at all...they only deluded themselves into thinking there was.

 

[Jimmy D]

There you go again, pretending the question in the OP was addressed to any supporter, when it was only addressed to those that made certain claims. Here, let me try again...

It was addressed to ID proponents.

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

Are you an ID proponent? If not, what are you doing attempting to discuss it? If so how does ID methodology identify design?

It's not difficult.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There you go again, pretending the question in the OP was addressed to any supporter, when it was only addressed to those that made certain claims. Here, let me try again...

If no one here made those claims in the OP, and since you cannot point them out after being asked several times, then I have to assume they are not here, then the OP is not answerable, because those who met the criteria to answer it, aren't here. It's a very simple concept.

And the reason I point that out is you have shown signs of being victorious because no one can answer, when in reality, you can't expect an answer for the reasons just given..

Do you understand now? See, it's a lot like evolution, they add an almost unnoticed twist here and there, until it appears in their own minds there is something real, when, actually, there is nothing there at all...they only deluded themselves into thinking there was.

The OP is addressed to followers of ID. To ID proponents.

Here is my exact quote from the OP:


In this thread, I'ld like to have ID proponents to apply their "id theory" to a couple of examples...

I have no idea what you find so confusing about any of this.

 

[durangodawood]

The OP is addressed to followers of ID. To ID proponents.

Here is my exact quote from the OP:


In this thread, I'ld like to have ID proponents to apply their "id theory" to a couple of examples...

I have no idea what you find so confusing about any of this.

I already explained why ID is misapplied in your OP.

Its a conjecture thats meant to be applied to life forms.... not to rock or other things.

 

[Speedwell]

I already explained why ID is misapplied in your OP.

Its a conjecture thats meant to be applied to life forms.... not to rock or other things.

Why just to life forms?

 

[durangodawood]

Why just to life forms?

Because it doesnt work for other forms... as we can see with the current 4 examples.

ID was never conceived as anything but and explanation for certain natural forms.

(Of course I think it doesnt work for natural forms either. But at least you see how someone might make that mistake).

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because it doesnt work for other forms... as we can see with the current 4 examples.

ID was never conceived as anything but and explanation for certain natural forms.

(Of course I think it doesnt work for natural forms either. But at least you see how someone might make that mistake).

You'ld have a point, if it wasn't for ID proponents themselves giving examples of non-living things on multiple occasions.

And even if you are correct, any ID proponent could still come on here, and explain why it doesn't work on rocks and thereby also point out the methodology in the process.

 

[Tinker Grey]

if it wasn't for ID proponents themselves giving examples of non-living things on multiple occasions

See Paley's watch, for example.

Watchmaker analogy - Wikipedia

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.

— William Paley, Natural Theology (1802)​

Emphasis added.

And yet if nature were designed to an even greater degree than the watch, the watch wouldn't have stood out in the first place.

 

[pitabread]

It's not difficult.

Remember who you are talking to...