Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Confusing mice with mousetraps
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 31 of 90 (189555)
03-01-2005 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by tsig
03-01-2005 8:51 PM


Re: obviously, no....
don't you know?
:astonished: :LOL:
the pre-flood culture!
(which also explains the extreme wear and .....)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by tsig, posted 03-01-2005 8:51 PM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by tsig, posted 03-02-2005 9:58 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 32 of 90 (189599)
03-02-2005 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by tsig
03-01-2005 8:37 PM


Re: Face
So you want positive evidence that something never happened?
You are the one who said it would be obvious. I'm just asking how.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by tsig, posted 03-01-2005 8:37 PM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by tsig, posted 03-02-2005 9:54 PM RAZD has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 90 (189666)
03-02-2005 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by LDSdude
03-01-2005 12:25 PM


LDS writes:
We don't see the hand of God reaching out of the clouds and placing a new animal on the planet, but through theories of probability, we can infer they were designed.
To which 'theories of probability' do you refer, exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by LDSdude, posted 03-01-2005 12:25 PM LDSdude has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 34 of 90 (189706)
03-02-2005 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
03-02-2005 7:05 AM


Re: Face
You are the one who said it would be obvious. I'm just asking how.
So you are saying that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense?
The features were the result of natural weathering.
What would be obvious to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2005 7:05 AM RAZD has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 35 of 90 (189708)
03-02-2005 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by RAZD
03-01-2005 8:59 PM


Re: obviously, no....
don't you know?
:astonished: :LOL:
the pre-flood culture!
(which also explains the extreme wear and .....)
Probably should have read this before the the other post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2005 8:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2005 7:19 AM tsig has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 36 of 90 (189743)
03-03-2005 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by tsig
03-02-2005 9:58 PM


Re: obviously, no....
DHA in msg #35 writes:
Probably should have read this before the the other post.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here
DHA in msg #34 writes:
So you are saying that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense?
Most definitely, and always. It may be indicative, but it isn't evidence.
The features were the result of natural weathering.
Which should be easy to demonstrate, yes? My old HS english teacher said that if you state something is obvious (in a paper) you should be able to demonstrate it.
Don't forget the one viewpoint issue with the total lack of symetry in the old man 'face' and other angles showing a rock outcrop that does not look like a face.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by tsig, posted 03-02-2005 9:58 PM tsig has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 37 of 90 (189747)
03-03-2005 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by tsig
03-01-2005 8:51 PM


design or not, it's not "obvious"
Where's the culture that produced the Old Man?
Extinct? Extraterrestial? Supernatural?
Any evidence that American Indians were into sculpture on a grand scale?
I didn't say anything about American Indians, but since you asked:
More info on the Nazca, and the hundreds of massive sculptures they produced.
Or how about:
More info on moundbuilding, a practice that spread from coast-to-coast in North America.
Why did all the lines on th face follow natural fault lines with no sign of working?
As I said before, the artist deliberately worked with the natural material along its natural lines so that it would blend into the landscape. This is quite similar to the style exhibited by the Nazca and the Moundbuilders, who produce massive sculpture that disappears into the landscape.
No signs of working? Perhaps the work is ancient enough that those signs have been lost to weathering. Or perhaps alien technology leaves no marks that we can understand. Or maybe an ancient New Hampshirian shaman used her telekinetic powers to break the rock along its fault lines without direct physical contact.
Quite frankly, I think your claim that you can "obviously" detect "absence of design" is as outrageous as the ID claim that they can "obviously" detect "design".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by tsig, posted 03-01-2005 8:51 PM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by tsig, posted 03-03-2005 12:42 PM pink sasquatch has replied
 Message 41 by custard, posted 03-03-2005 1:44 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 38 of 90 (189782)
03-03-2005 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by pink sasquatch
03-03-2005 8:49 AM


"obvious"
Quite frankly, I think your claim that you can "obviously" detect "absence of design" is as outrageous as the ID claim that they can "obviously" detect "design".
If the difference between a carving, known to be the work of man, and a natural product of weathering isn't obvious to you, I can't help that.
Was it the word "obvious" that set you off?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-03-2005 8:49 AM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Loudmouth, posted 03-03-2005 12:55 PM tsig has not replied
 Message 40 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-03-2005 1:37 PM tsig has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 90 (189785)
03-03-2005 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by tsig
03-03-2005 12:42 PM


Re: "obvious"
quote:
If the difference between a carving, known to be the work of man, and a natural product of weathering isn't obvious to you, I can't help that.
Man can also make objects that look like they were formed naturally. How do we tell the difference in this type of situation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by tsig, posted 03-03-2005 12:42 PM tsig has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 40 of 90 (189796)
03-03-2005 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by tsig
03-03-2005 12:42 PM


BUT it's sooo obvious that it is not obvious!
If the difference between a carving, known to be the work of man, and a natural product of weathering isn't obvious to you, I can't help that.
Quite the non-rebuttal. You've simply restated the problem that I was addressing.
Perhaps I should counter by stating, "Well, it is quite obvious that it is not obvious. If it isn't obvious to you, I can't help that."
Do you see the absurdity?
Many IDers and Creationists state that it is obvious that life is the product of design. Usually when confronted they reply with a ridiculous comment like "I don't need evidence, since it is obvious - if it isn't obvious to you, I can't help that."
Your claim is no different...
Since you have a mastery of the obvious, is the following a product of intelligent design or non-intelligent forces?:
How specifically do you know?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by tsig, posted 03-03-2005 12:42 PM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by tsig, posted 03-03-2005 5:02 PM pink sasquatch has replied
 Message 43 by tsig, posted 03-03-2005 5:18 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 90 (189798)
03-03-2005 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by pink sasquatch
03-03-2005 8:49 AM


Re: design or not, it's not "obvious"
pink writes:
Quite frankly, I think your claim that you can "obviously" detect "absence of design" is as outrageous as the ID claim that they can "obviously" detect "design".
Another great point. I also like the stacked rocks example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-03-2005 8:49 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by tsig, posted 03-03-2005 5:26 PM custard has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 42 of 90 (189851)
03-03-2005 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by pink sasquatch
03-03-2005 1:37 PM


Re: BUT it's sooo obvious that it is not obvious!
It's pretty obvious that the word "obvious" sets alarm bells going off.
Would you say it is obvious that water is wet, or fire is hot, or do yoou challenge these statements because I said they are obvious?
Original topic:
How IDers confuse living with non-living things.
Whether or it is obvious that the Old Man of the Montain was designed or not is not really related.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-03-2005 1:37 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2005 5:51 PM tsig has replied
 Message 46 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-03-2005 6:39 PM tsig has replied
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2005 9:14 PM tsig has replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 43 of 90 (189855)
03-03-2005 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by pink sasquatch
03-03-2005 1:37 PM


Re: BUT it's sooo obvious that it is not obvious!
I know you did a lot of work on the posts.
Thanks for the picture of Serpent Mound I grew up not far away from there and we took went on class field trips thered every year.
I stand bemused that what I thought was a simple remark has generated so much bandwidth to so little purpose.
If you could turn the sarcasm generator down, it would be nice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-03-2005 1:37 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 44 of 90 (189859)
03-03-2005 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by custard
03-03-2005 1:44 PM


Re: design or not, it's not "obvious"
It is obvious that they are rocks, no, maybe they are just prop rocks, or pixies magiced the camera,ect.
Using the word "obvious" obviously gets you stoned.
Besides, when I use a word it means exactly what I mean no more or no less.LOL That's a quote, just can't remeber who, obviously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by custard, posted 03-03-2005 1:44 PM custard has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 45 of 90 (189866)
03-03-2005 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by tsig
03-03-2005 5:02 PM


It's pretty obvious that the word "obvious" sets alarm bells going off.
As well it should - it's usually the word people use when what they mean to say is "I'm going to assert that this is true, and because I don't have a good argument that it is, I'm going to couch it in dripping condescension so that you don't ask me for evidence."
Would you say it is obvious that water is wet, or fire is hot, or do yoou challenge these statements because I said they are obvious?
Obvious or not, we have clearly definied, rigorous procedures to detect these things beyond doubt, that don't rely on subjective human decisions. What similar test or procedure exists to detect design? That's what you're being asked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by tsig, posted 03-03-2005 5:02 PM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by tsig, posted 03-03-2005 7:12 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024