Is my rock designed?

If they did that then they, like the archaeologist, would put living or formerly living organisms in the "undesigned" pile, and would cease to be cdesign proponentists.As I wrote in the very post you're replying to: That's "different" as in not the same.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So anything that was was not designed by peolpe (with an illustrious history in and known mechanisms of, design) would be labled 'not designed'.I guess we can all be happy with that.End thread?Edited by Larni, : spelling

Archaeologists are not looking for design. They're looking for things that show evidence of having been made or modified by people.At opposite ends of the spectrum the design argument is simple: you know it when you see it. A belt buckle is designed, a rock isn't. But as you move more toward the middle you reach a large grey area. For example, take these polished pebbles: Are they from a polishing machine and therefore designed? Or are they from a stream bed and therefore natural?That's all this thread is asking. You're given this polished pebble. How do you tell whether it was designed? This is the question that people like Spetner, Gitt and Dembski claim to have answered, and all we want is a description of the method that determines whether or not this rock was designed.--Percy

Just to throw in my two cents in.
Design always means the fantastic complexity of nature.
Not rounded stones.
Design is where a human being understands that such a complex thing could only of come from complex processes.
Design is likely or very reasonably to be seen where complexity of process can't be mere happanchance.Therefore its reasonable to see design and not see evolutionary etc processes.
Then from there take on attempts to deny complex processes and replace them with simple step evolutionism.Design equals complexity equals complex processes.
Sum. God plus his mechanisms.

So a car, for example, would not be designed by this criterion, since it is not natural. So a spoon, for example, would not be designed by this criterion, since it is not complex.Come back when you've got a criterion that works, eh?

Then perhaps we have a poor choice of terminology here. If your definition of "design" must include complexity, I suggest we simply call it "cdesign" to help avoid confusion. Tell me, are mere humans capable of producing full-blown cdesign, as opposed to ordinary run-of-the-mill design?

So stones rounded by human beings are not designed? The stones in an opal necklace, for example?--Percy

Maybe you could throw in a direct answer too? How do I use ID theory to figure out if my rock is designed or not?
Walk me through the steps.

Too bad that not a single cdesign proponentist has been able to support either of these claims. Since when is evolution a simple process? ID is a claim. It is not complexity. It is not complex processes. You are confusing the claim with what it is trying to explain.

Everyone.
by design i mean the great claim of iD that the universe is easily seen as designed because of its great complexity.
Round stones are a trivial operation that only taps into the greater design that includes processes of movement affecting material.iD is simply demanding that the great complexity mankind has always seen could only come from great processes in nature.
They are reasonably too complex for trivial cause and effect without a thinking being involved.one can not dismiss the obviousness of wonderful complexity as a teaching of a designer.
Critics must go a long way to show the universe is not designed.

Those making the extraordinary claims are the ones who need to show their evidence.And no, the bible does not count as evidence. Nor does your belief.

Thank you, Robert, for this second declaration of belief. Should there come a time when you feel like addressing the thread's topic then please visit us again. Until then, adieu.--Percy

How do I use ID theory to figure out if my rock is designed or not?
Walk me through the steps.

Well this is a obscure point.
ID is a bigger idea for the universe.
So processes only exist because of a creator.
So forces pushing rocks about are a minor process but within a bigger concept of the universe.
In both natural or man made rounded stones it was a special mechanism working upon parent material.
Both demonstrate a creator.
Natures rocks are from existing processes.
These processes show a creator.

According to your line of reasoning, every possible observation would be evidence of a "creator." If your model is equally good at predicting any conceivable outcome, then it's meaningless. The terms "designed" and "not designed" lose any meaning because everything conceivable becomes "designed."