Design Counterarguments

Hi,I think I have another way to determine when a complex(rare) event implies a creator.When the event is not necessary to the existence of the observer, one would perceive it in its true frequency. So if it happens too frequently, one can say it was designed. (ex.: arrowhead complexity)But when the event is necessary to the existence of the observer, one would perceive it as being more frequent than it actually is. So, even rare, random events would seem frequent when they happen. And, in this case, one can not tell if it was designed. (ex: DNA complexity)sorry for the english (im not from Bagdah)

I didn't get the point...The analysis I mentioned does not need any pre-defined criteria. You can apply it in anything from rock formations to physical constants and get a good idea if there are any reasons to one claim ID.Dozens of little rocks with the same cutting/piercing shape are too improbable to happen by natural erosion. And we does not need to be looking for arrowheads do drawn this conclusion. The same can be said about radio pulses ordered in the prime number sequence coming from outer space.But when you wonder why the universe is so adapted to support our existence you can't say the same thing because of the motive I explained before: even the rare events would be expected to seem frequent.It does not disprove a creator, it just forbids one from using the design argument to prove it.

I thought i had justified. What is missing on the explanation?And the analysis doesn't answers "designed" or "not designed". It just answers if an complex event implies a designer or not.It's slightly different.

Hi,I think the opposite. The first natural step is to check if the event implies ID. Then, we choose an explanation based on the best we know at the moment.Medieval people would identify ID in a Martian arrowhead even if they weren't looking for ET's. They just would have a different explanation that from us.Maybe they would say it is God-made. Or man made, if they don't know where it comes from. But they will be correct on the first conclusion anyway. So, I think this shows the secondary importance of the "Designed by what?" question.

Anything that happens more frequently than expected. (I think this is the creationist definition.)They say this ALWAYS proves that it can't be happening by chance.

Anything that happens more frequently than expected. (I think this is the creationist definition.)Do you comply with it?
If not, why? And I remember there is a situation when the "designed by what" question matters. It's when the event seems random. When you know what you are looking for, apparently usual events can provide complex information.But we are analyzing complex-looking events. (No desing argument uses random-looking ones.)

Hey! I didn't use any of these words in the past definition. But now you asked, I'm confused. My definitions comes from dictionaries, (non-English dictionaries!)It's ok some designed things won't be detected by us without prior knowledge. But some of them will just fall in that category.(Happening more than expected).I think it's a good indicator of design in some cases. Creationists want it to be an indicator all the times. And you?