Confusing mice with mousetraps

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.

True, but then you claimed that you could detect non-design based on obviousness. This is the same (il)logic used by the IDers that you criticize in the OP. That sort of thing screams "hypocrisy" when you read it...

I didn't say that.You should just be careful using the same arguments that you criticize others for using.

Ice is water that isn't wet. Buddhist monks are used to drinking boiling water (when the tea is just made) and got severely burned when forced to lower elevations by the chinese. these are relative things.the issue is about confusing what is designed by {people\etc} with what is designed by natural action.if you can tell that something is {apparently} designed but cannot determine the process that resulted in the {something} then you cannot state what the process was, whether you want it to be an IDer or a natural process.

Again, you are the one that made the assertion. The best you can say is that everyone who has studied the old man formation has concluded that it is a natural formation.and yes it was the word "obviously" that set you up. now have a good lol eh?{added by edit} ps == forgot to mention people walking on fire...

Anybody can read through the history books and examine the origins of an object as recorded at the time. But you've made a different claim - you claim that you can detect the presence of design absent any record of the history of the object; only via the inherent characteristics of the object.You're being stoned because, in spite of making this claim (in fact, stating that it's so trivial to do so that it's "obvious"), you steadfastly refuse to apply it to any case whatsoever. Why is that, exactly? You've advanced a claim that you can detect design for objects for whom we have no recorded history, such as living things. Why won't you actually attempt to make that detection?

fire walking as in some people get burned and others don't. so is it still obvious that fire burns?and ice is still {H2O}multiple molecules just as liquid water is.

I did misunderstand. My apologies. Looking back on the thread I don't exactly see why everybody's all up in your face.

We can't prove that humans did NOT make OMotM. However, we have no proof that humans did and the OMotM could have easily been produced by natural weathering. I think this is what you have been trying to say all along. Earlier I was just saying that humans are capable of making objects that look like they were naturally made so it is impossible to rule out human design.

Yep, totally agree (after my little edit). Humans instinctually see faces where there are no faces. It is hardwired into our brain. More general pattern recognition occurs through hardwiring as well, but through a different part of the brain than face recognition. This is the problem that ID faces, the instinctual basis for pattern recognition.

If ID is correct could god have designed and created the universe a split second ago with all memories and objects in place as they are? Doesn't the logic of ID permit this?

It's not so much that living and non-living things are
radically or fundamentally different, but that there are NO
established criteria for detection of design that stand up
to any scrutiny.

BEYOND LOGIC!