Confusing mice with mousetraps

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}}}

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}}}

To which 'theories of probability' do you refer, exactly?

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?

Probably should have read this before the the other post.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here Most definitely, and always. It may be indicative, but it isn't evidence. 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}}}

Extinct? Extraterrestial? Supernatural? 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. 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".

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?

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?

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?

Another great point. I also like the stacked rocks example.

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.

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.

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.

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." 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.