Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#1  Postby Calilasseia » Jul 25, 2010 12:06 pm

This one comes courtesy of deadman_932 over at TalkRational.

Since those who erect the "design" assertion think that "design" is allegedly "obvious", and that it's only rejected because those pesky scientists won't accept magic, I've a simple question, courtesy of the aforementioned deadman_932.

Here's a picture of some rocks. The picture is being linked to because it's over 700 pixels wide, and the board software is set not to allow embedding of wide images. One of these rocks is "designed" (it was shaped by human hand). Which one?

Present all reasoning (assuming that the "design" assertion is accompanied by any reasoning, of course), to support your answer. Specious apologetics will simply be pointed and laughed at.

Picture of lots of rocks ...

EDIT: thanks to Xeno for reminding me about this. :)
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 22011
Age: 57
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#2  Postby Shrunk » Jul 25, 2010 12:10 pm

I would add that, in order to support the claim that "design" can be determined from the inherent qualities of the object itself, they would have to demonstrate that the "designed" rock can be identified without reference to another artifacts of similar appearance. So if they say, "This rock, because it resembles other examples of arrowheads (or whatever) with which we are familiar." then they fail the test. They would have to say something like "This rock, unlike the others, is irreducibly complex, or contains specified complex information."

It'll be interesting to see what answers we get.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#3  Postby Largenton » Jul 25, 2010 12:22 pm

Actually, as an archaeologist I would look for a bulb of percussion present when people work stone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulb_of_applied_force

In general it is the key identification feature for a worked tool. However, the picture isn't good enough (and my area of expertise is also not in lithics) for me to deduce which one. Calli could you pm me to tell me btw, I've forgotten since last time.
User avatar
Largenton
 
Posts: 84

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#4  Postby Calilasseia » Jul 25, 2010 12:30 pm

PM duly sent. :)
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 22011
Age: 57
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#5  Postby Animavore » Jul 25, 2010 12:32 pm

Nice thread to point future IDers to.
I wonder if Polly Annie will take up the challenge? :ask:

By the way. Could some one PM me with the answer too. They all look like normal rocks to me.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 43024
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#6  Postby Largenton » Jul 25, 2010 12:47 pm

Thanks for the PM Calli and I definitely think if I looked at the actual rock I would find that bulb. Can't really see it on the photo though.
User avatar
Largenton
 
Posts: 84

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#7  Postby pawiz » Jul 25, 2010 12:49 pm

Ah yes, but it's obvious which one was designed by god now isn't it?

Win for the creotard "logic"
It is my deeply held belief that (insert name of favored deity here) is a complete fuckwit. Please respect my beliefs.
User avatar
pawiz
 
Name: Paul
Posts: 676
Age: 53
Male

Country: United States of Jebus
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#8  Postby Ubjon » Jul 25, 2010 12:51 pm

Animavore wrote:Nice thread to point future IDers to.
I wonder if Polly Annie will take up the challenge? :ask:

By the way. Could some one PM me with the answer too. They all look like normal rocks to me.


Same. I'm trying to find something that could look like a tool or something for making tools but I can't see anything.
Ubjon wrote:Your God is just a pair of lucky underpants.


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post6 ... 3b#p675825
User avatar
Ubjon
 
Posts: 2569

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#9  Postby willhud9 » Jul 25, 2010 12:56 pm

I do not understand the question for IDists. If you would be so kind and explain it to me, I may be able to address the question more specifically.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19232
Age: 28
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#10  Postby DaveScriv » Jul 25, 2010 12:58 pm

This could be interesting. I've noticed five of them which look as though they might be possible candidates, purely on the basis that their shape might be useful as tools. Probably completely wrong....... :lol:
DaveScriv
 
Posts: 1302
Age: 67
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#11  Postby Largenton » Jul 25, 2010 1:01 pm

Now you know how hard it is for archaeologists studying the first stone tools. ;)

And Will it is this.

According to Intelligent Design proponents, it is obvious that everything is designed by God (see Paley's Watch). Therefore, things that should have been designed are obvious in comparison to those that aren't designed. With this reasoning it should be obvious which stone is designed by humans and a good explanation should be presented on why they think that.
User avatar
Largenton
 
Posts: 84

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#12  Postby Animavore » Jul 25, 2010 1:01 pm

At first I mis-read "it was shaped by a human hand" as "it was shaped like a human hand" and thought, that one near the bottom left looks a bit like a thumb :lol:
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 43024
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#13  Postby Goldenmane » Jul 25, 2010 1:09 pm

PM please... I am completely untrained (formally, and about the same informally) in the area, but I'm terribly interested and have four or five candidates in mind... and I suspect I'll not be surprised to learn that none fit the bill.
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3

http://goldenmane.onlineinfidels.com/
User avatar
Goldenmane
 
Posts: 2383

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#14  Postby Calilasseia » Jul 25, 2010 1:16 pm

willhud9 wrote:I do not understand the question for IDists. If you would be so kind and explain it to me, I may be able to address the question more specifically.


Here you go.

IDists claim that entities in the biosphere are "designed". Furthermore, many of them erect the assertion that "design" is obvious to see in the biosphere. I'll leave aside for the moment the vast array of scientific literature establishing that magic entities aren't needed, as this is actually irrelevant from the standpoint of the question I'm posing.

Now, if it is "obvious" that certain entities are "designed", then it should be a simple matter for those erecting the "design" assertion to tell us WHY it is "obvious". They should have to hand a set of criteria allowing them to establish whether or not any given entity is "designed" or not. In short, they should have a reliable method of separating entities into one of two classes, "designed" and "not designed". Furthermore, this method should yield appropriate results when applied to entities of known provenance. In short, if I hold up two rocks, one that has been subject to shaping by human action, and one that has not, IDists should be able to apply their metric and return the correct answer in a repeatable and reliable fashion, regardless of how many pairs of such rocks I hold up.

If they cannot do this, then either:

[1] They don't have such a method to begin with, in which case their assertion that "design" is "obvious" falls flat on its face, because all that they have in the absence of such a method is a blind assertion that certain entities are "designed", or;

[2] Any method that they are using is unreliable, in which case, once again, their assertion falls flat on its face.

Without a universally applicable metric that returns reliable results in a repeatable fashion, one that has been tested upon entities of known provenance and found to work via such testing, and, moreover, a metric that involves elementary examination, without tediously involved computations or recourse to measurements of exotic phenomena, IDists have no basis upon which to assert that "design" is purportedly "obvious". Indeed, in the absence of an appropriate metric as defined above, they have no basis upon which to assert that "design" applies to entities of unknown provenance at all.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 22011
Age: 57
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#15  Postby DaveScriv » Jul 25, 2010 1:34 pm

DaveScriv wrote:This could be interesting. I've noticed five of them which look as though they might be possible candidates, purely on the basis that their shape might be useful as tools. Probably completely wrong....... :lol:


Yep, having been told by PM which one it is, it wasn't any of the five stones I thought were possibles. :scratch: :lol:
DaveScriv
 
Posts: 1302
Age: 67
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#16  Postby Ubjon » Jul 25, 2010 1:35 pm

DaveScriv wrote:
DaveScriv wrote:This could be interesting. I've noticed five of them which look as though they might be possible candidates, purely on the basis that their shape might be useful as tools. Probably completely wrong....... :lol:


Yep, having been told by PM which one it is, it wasn't any of the five stones I thought were possibles. :scratch: :lol:


I'm still waiting for a PM on it. Pass the message onto me please, Cal is being a bit slow or just not bothering.

EDIT

I would never have guessed that rock. I guess you need to have good knowledge of geology (i.e. the properties of different types of rock) and archaelogy to be able to work that out. It just looks like any other rock thats been knocked about to me.
Last edited by Ubjon on Jul 25, 2010 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ubjon wrote:Your God is just a pair of lucky underpants.


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post6 ... 3b#p675825
User avatar
Ubjon
 
Posts: 2569

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#17  Postby Moonwatcher » Jul 25, 2010 1:41 pm

Calilasseia wrote:This one comes courtesy of deadman_932 over at TalkRational.

Since those who erect the "design" assertion think that "design" is allegedly "obvious", and that it's only rejected because those pesky scientists won't accept magic, I've a simple question, courtesy of the aforementioned deadman_932.

Here's a picture of some rocks. The picture is being linked to because it's over 700 pixels wide, and the board software is set not to allow embedding of wide images. One of these rocks is "designed" (it was shaped by human hand). Which one?

Present all reasoning (assuming that the "design" assertion is accompanied by any reasoning, of course), to support your answer. Specious apologetics will simply be pointed and laughed at.

Picture of lots of rocks ...

EDIT: thanks to Xeno for reminding me about this. :)


You're not fooling me. It's the leaf that's designed. :whistle:

I recently went on vacation and was walking on a rocky area of beach. I thought about how some theists will use human inventions as evidence of design but they don't use objects shaped by random forces as evidence of lack of design. It's really the same principal as "Good things happen therefore my Magic Man in the Sky. Bad things happen therefore nothing proven." "Heads I win, tails you lose."
We're holograms projected by a scientist riding on the back of an elephant in a garden imagined by a goose in a snow globe on the mantel of a fireplace imagined in a book in the dreams of a child sleeping in his mother's lap.
User avatar
Moonwatcher
 
Posts: 2018
Age: 61
Male

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#18  Postby Blitzkrebs » Jul 25, 2010 1:55 pm

Image
ikster7579 wrote:Being rational is just an excuse for not wanting to have faith.
User avatar
Blitzkrebs
 
Name: Roy
Posts: 392
Age: 30
Male

Country: Amerika
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#19  Postby Animavore » Jul 25, 2010 2:08 pm

:lol: :clap:
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 43024
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#20  Postby Goldenmane » Jul 25, 2010 2:18 pm

DaveScriv wrote:
DaveScriv wrote:This could be interesting. I've noticed five of them which look as though they might be possible candidates, purely on the basis that their shape might be useful as tools. Probably completely wrong....... :lol:


Yep, having been told by PM which one it is, it wasn't any of the five stones I thought were possibles. :scratch: :lol:


I feel all awesome about myself and everything, because it was in my top three.

I've had a (very amateur, and sporadic) interest in such things, though, over the last few decades. Even with that I wasn't remotely sure, and my other top two didn't share much with it (or each other, really). I don't think I can claim it as a victory, especially given that in retrospect it's fucking obvious.

Retrospect... if only I could see that well in the now.
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3

http://goldenmane.onlineinfidels.com/
User avatar
Goldenmane
 
Posts: 2383

Print view this post

Next

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests