rationalskepticism.org

Царь Славян wrote:

hotshoe wrote: The Tsar who is all about the probability math, all about the numbers, suddenly can't answer what mathematics he would use in this case.

Tsar, you should be ashamed of yourself for your dishonest non-answer to this honest question.

That's how you answer the question about natural laws.

No, that is how YOU dishonestly dodge questions about what your metric for design is, what math you use to measure design (such that your numbers would demonstrate that Mt Rushmore is designed - or not, as the case may be).

No, that is how YOU show your whole design argument to be a bluff. You have nothing more than an ignorant guess. Because you don't know a "natural law" which accounts for Mt. Rushmore, you blusteringly guess that there is no such law, and you bleat out the illogical conclusion that it must have been designed.

In this case you happen to be right, Mt. Rushmore was indeed designed. If this were Vegas, your bluff might have won you a pot of money. But getting the right answer for the wrong reason is still an abject failure in the realm of science and logic. No prizes here for you.

You should hang your head in shame for trying to get away with that nonsense on a forum devoted to rationality.