rationalskepticism.org

Царь Славян wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:To state that you cannot infer intention from an object is to state that you cannot infer design from an object.

Non sequitur. If design exist, intention existed. But we don't actually have to know what exactly the designer intended todo, for us to infer design. If you find a super complicated device, made by super advance aliens, you would have no idea what it's for. You would not know their intention, but you could infer that the device is designed.

Again you are evading the point, whether intentionally or by miscomprehension.

To posit design, you must posit intent. Design is defined by intent. Without intent, there is no design, only the appearance of design like sand blowing up against a wall and leaving a 'designed' slope, or a mammal taking a crap and leaving a 'designed' spiral.

Царь Славян wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:You have absolutely destroyed the tenuous foundation on which design inference exists even before you have really thought about it.

No, you keep repeating this but this is not ture. What I have destroyed is YOUR SUPPOSED design detection method that hinges upon intentionallity. My method does not.

Then, fundamentally, you are demanding that our language change to accomodate your belief. Unfortunately for you, that is not going to happen. You are now delving into the realm of pseudoscience. Design necessarily implies intent, when you say you see design, you are saying that you see realised intent.

Царь Славян wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:That's how weak the hypothesis is. It doesn't even resist logical prodding, it has no chance of ever being testable, ergo, it is not scientific.

How many times do I have to keep repeating myself? Natural laws and chance. If an object can be explained by any of those two then the design hypothesis is falsified. Those are the forces that can render a design hypothesis null and void. I said it at least three times already. Why are you pretending I didn't say it?

I am saying it again because it's like you have a blind spot here and just can't see where your argument leads.

But following your ill-defined position of inferring design, everything could be designed. It's a typical form of pseudoscience when all roads lead to Rome.