|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Confusing mice with mousetraps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 3163 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 3163 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6277 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
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:
Or how about:
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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 3163 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Man can also make objects that look like they were formed naturally. How do we tell the difference in this type of situation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6277 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 3163 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 3163 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 3163 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1721 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024