Posted: Jul 28, 2010 7:44 am
by Animavore
Robert Byers wrote:
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. :)

First its not scientists that are the problem. Science has little or nothing to do with origin issues. Evolution can't claim the prestige of science or scientists.

This is not a good case.
First all the rocks are designed. They are within the laws of the universe. They were not made round but became round by processes. They first were not round.
So copying them is copying a process and copying a process within a universe of design.
So they all are designed where a process was invoked to make them round.
The human made one just did it too.

If your trying to say the rocks are from chance then your wrong.
They are from laws in nature. No chance here at all.
This is rather a good case why creationism makes better points over the old evolution ideas.
Closer attention to presumptions.

So that's a "No" then?