Posted: Jan 22, 2011 4:41 pm
Царь Славян wrote:Spearthrower wrote: 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.
I know that design means intent. I know that, you don't have to keep repeating that. But what you also have to understand is that I do not have to know what the intent was, in order to detect design in the first place. If I found a piece of paper on the street that had something written on it, I wouldn't know why the person that wrote that, did it. But I would certainly know it was designed.
You have just done a 180. You repeated over and over that design does not mean intent. Now you are making like you accepted it all along.
I could go back through this thread and re-quote around 10 times where you said precisely the opposite.
Now you've come to this understanding, you need to go back and reread my arguments where you kept stating that intent was irrelevant - by rejecting out of hand this point that you now accept unreservedly, you most probably missed some very crucial critiques of your position.
Царь Славян wrote:Spearthrower wrote: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.
Design is intent, but I do not have to know exactly what the intent was in order to detect design.
Your goalposts have moved. Re-read our last 5 exchanges to see how much your position has shifted. I can't really be expected to argue with a moving target unless you accept that you have changed your position.
Царь Славян wrote:Spearthrower wrote: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.
Wrong. According to my method, snowflakes were not designed.
Wow! What an incredible conclusion! However, the problem, as I already said, is that it doesn't follow from your premise.