Posted: Aug 05, 2010 8:26 am
Robert Byers wrote:
Dudely wrote:You guys are missing the entire point of the rock thing.

Consider it this way: if god made everything than that means he had to design everything. If he designed everything than how can you tell that something is "designed" when you have no basis for what is NOT designed? By this reasoning even a rock is designed- WE can't make a rock without it being designed, so how could he? The very fact that you look at something like a pile of dirt, or rocks, or a dead swamp and say it's NOT designed makes your entire argument fall apart. The fact is that there are, indeed, some things that are clearly not designed. If your answer is that "oh those are caused by natural processes put in place by god" that just leaves open the question of how you determine what is designed by him and what is caused by his natural processes.

The fact of the matter is that ALL things are the result of natural processes. If you want to say they were caused by god that is another story, but please don't just come up and say something is designed because it just makes you look silly.

My comment stands well. They were made by processes. All rocks etc. The paper you quoted just says it was a chemical origin and this is rare. i didn't know about this but its obscure. in fact only a few papers have been done on it.
Anyways this changes nothing of what I said.
The process here is just as much a intelligent process effect as anything in nature. its not happanchance.
It is a part of design even if a corruption of design.

You are confusing or conflating design with process here.

Robert Byers wrote:by the way I presume they got it right about chemical action. otherwise a answer could be they are evidence of being rounded by being tossed about when they were laid in the stratas which were laid by the flood.
Funy if this becoms a problem for slow layering claims!

In the absecene of evidence there could be a lot of "could be's" - understanding the nature of evidence allows us to put aside the ridiculous and the fanciful and focus in on the more likely 'could be's' until they become 'possiblies' and then 'probablies' until finally they are 'most definitelies.' 'Presumablies' are OK if the 'probalies' match-up with the known 'certainties.' I hope that's clear?