Confusing mice with mousetraps

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...

Sorry crash, but I'm being stoned because I said the Old Man Of The Mountain was not-designed.Since no one has ever claimed it was made by the only designers we know of, humans, and we hve no plans or any record of it being built by humans, I thought it was obvious that it had not been designed. Obvious seems to be a real hot-button issue with the pink one.

So now I'm a hypocrite. Got any more stones in that pile?No one has ever claimed it as a work of the only designers we know of, humans, this plus the fact that every time I have seen it refered to it was said to be a natural formation led me to the conclusion that it was obvious that it was not designed.

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

Yeah you did and just did it again.Once again, do you have any evidence that the natural formation known as The Old Man On the Mountain was designed. If not then from all the evidence I have it is obviously a natural formation, not a designed one.

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.

---

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

Ice is not water. It is a different state of matter.I say the Old Man of the Mountain is a natural formation.Any proof to the contrary?

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...This message has been edited by RAZD, 03-03-2005 21:42 AM

---

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

I used the word "obvious" as meaning according with common consent with accepted reality.Fire walking?

You're being stoned because you don't seem to be applying any kind of consistent criteria for the detection of design; this one thing you say is designed, this other you say is not, even though they share otherwise identical characteristics. 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?

I never claimed to detect design I make no assertion of design. I merely said that the formation is a natural formation.What the hell is the problem with agreeing that it is a natural formation?

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.

---

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

Will not reply as this is totally off topic.To recapitulate:topic is IDers confuse the living and the non-living.Mt. Rushmore vs The Old Man of the Mountain came up.I said that we could prove Mt. Rushmore was built by humans, but the OMof the M was not.Pink S. took exeption to my use of the word obvious and the the frog misunderstood and thought I was saying design was obvious.Been a lot of heat, but very little warmth.

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

quote:

---

I said that we could prove Mt. Rushmore was built by humans, but the OMof the M was not.

---

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.