What exactly is ID?

Both those things (the hillside & Mt. Rushmore) are complex.You are claiming that the hillside was NOT designed and that Mt. Rushmore WAS designed based on WHAT? The complexity? They are BOTH complex.In fact, the hillside may very well be MORE complex than Mt. Rushmore.The ONLY way you are able to differentiate the two as being natural vs designed is because you.......wait for it.......know the MECHANISM!You know the MECHANISM of erosion and gravity which generated the hillside. You know the MECHANISM of dynamite and chissel which generated Mt. Rushmoore.Your equation CAN NOT differentiate between the two WITHOUT the mechanism. More "specified patterns" Go ahead and do some calculations on the unlikelihood of three different images showing up in stone within just two planets in our solar system.Astronomical! Impossible! They were all designed!

Invisible pink unicorns have been observed just as often as invisible supernatural wizards. If he supports ID, he is a Creationist. And this conspiracy includes all of science - every field. This "conspiracy" you are so worried about is called "reality". Egypt.
On the stone itself.
With something very much like this: By a stone worker in Egypt.
In Egypt.
To provide information for people who understand different languages. Here's what it says in three different languages:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~qkstart/rosetta.html196 BC.See. Unlike you, I have the answers. Because the markings on the stone are fine. In order to make those markings you need to use a device with a point equal to or smaller than the notch it makes. This is simple physics. Again, simple physics. You can not make multiple blows at the same time. Because of where it was found and how it was made. You see because I know the MECHANISM OF PRODUCTION I can determine if it is natural or unnatural.That's very different than your claim which is that YOU can MAGICALLY tell. How many times do we have to post this information for you to bother to read it? Show your math.You don't simply get to declare that the bad lands image is "not complex enough".Prove it.

Wrong. Again.TEA is a word. If it mutated to TEAX it would no longer be a word - ergo there has been a mutation which has not been removed.If it mutated AGAIN to STEAX it would still not be a word. Two "bad" mutations not removed.One more mutation and we could get:
STEAK or TEXAS or TAXESSuddenly there are NO LONGER any bad mutations.Just because something changes does not mean it ALWAYS CHANGES for the worse.

This is the "argument from douch-baggery" aka "How do you know, were you there?"Using YOUR standards, you can't tell how any sandwich was unless you made it. And, even then it wouldn't be a "sandwich" because you can't tell if the stuff which is exactly like bread is bread.It's a crap-tastical last ditch argument which is only used by people who are flailing. Apart from the fact that the Rosetta stone was _discovered_ prior to the invention of the laser, a laser would result in different tool marks than those found on the stone itself. They would examine the context of the find and the source material from which it was made.Since the stone is currently in a British museum it would be out of context with the other traditional artifacts and "modern" artifacts. Are you retarded? I've answered this question about 50x.We know the MECHANISM of stone carving. LET'S BE VERY CLEAR.You are saying that ONLY probable things CAN occur and that IMPROBABLE things NEVER occur in sets smaller than their probability.So, if you spin a roulette wheel ONE time, it doesn't land on any number. IT ONLY lands on numbers on the 38th roll at which point it lands on EVER number. This quote is EXACTLY why you will never understand. You just don't get it.ATE, ETA, TEA, EAT, TAE, AETALL of these words have meaning, just because YOU don't know the meanings doesn't mean they aren't words.You are claiming you can detect design based on your profound ignorance. If you don't know what it is or how it was made, it MUST be magic.

Because we know a lot about trade and technology from the time period. We also know the source material for the stone. You are desperately grasping for straws. You are now trying to claim that the ancient Egyptians had LASER TECHNOLOGY. LOL. Grow up. This is a RETARDED question. You know it. The fact that you actually posted it is an insult to this forum. Yes, but you CAN'T buried it in context at an undisturbed archaeological site. So, you are saying that just because "it looks like it" was carved, that doesn't mean it was actually carved.Basically, the appearance of design is NOT evidence of design.Excellent, you just lost the ENTIRE debate. You are, as always, contradicting yourself.If I pick SPECIFIC numbers for the lottery (which MILLIONS of people do) and win, then that is a SPECIFIED event with EXTREMELY low probability and yet it happens MULTIPLE TIMES A YEAR. There are 12 letters in Professional.Using JUST the English anagram generator there are 27,214 workable anagrams.That's stuff you would RECOGNIZE.Of course you are filtering by just ONE factor - your understanding of the words.If you include the ability to decode codes, or other languages, or any other kind of meaning which could be construed from the letters, the numbers jump WAY up.Just because YOU only understand ONE solution does not mean that only ONE solution exists. Wow, you're right, that is EXCELLENT evidence AGAINST intelligent Design.What sort of a retarded genie would screw up SOOOOOOOOOOO bad in his design?

Except that it doesn't because genetic meltdown has NEVER occurred.Billions of years of life and no genetic meltdown. And, by your own admission billions of years to go before it could potentially happen.

Let's be clear what has been happening in case anyone isn't following along.My position:
Design is only design if you can determine FACTUALLY that the object was MADE not naturally formed. The _ONLY_ way to determine this is if you know the mechanism used to create the object.My example: Circles can be created by design or by nature. Unless you know how the circle was made, you can not determine if it is an example of design.Smooth's position:
Since magic is undetectable, we can attribute magic as the mechanism of design for any and all objects and can't be proven wrong.His example: The Rosetta stone was created magically by laser wielding Ancient Egyptians randomly shooting lasers in all directions.He asks us to extend this fantasy to all of "Creation" citing Jew Magic as an undeniable source of everything we see around us.When pressed to proof, his "argument" devolves into:
"How do you know, were you there?"Nearly 1,000 messages on this board, and that's as far as he's gotten."It could have been magic, you don't know. You weren't there."A 5 year old would hang his head in shame over that sort of argument.Really truly pathetic.

If you _honestly_ believed this you would never consume anything you did kill and prepare yourself. You would NEVER take medicine. You would NEVER ride in a car or heaven forbid a plane.This is the argument from douchbaggery. It is absolutely worthless. It is the last ditch effort of people who've been cornered and had their entire argument destroyed.Like Godwin's law, Nuggin's Law is quite simple:
"The longer you argue with a Creationist, the more likely it is that they will say 'How do you know? Were you there?'. At that point, the debate is over. They are out of ideas. You win." And that's retarded since you can not distinguish between what is naturally caused and what is not since you have NO MECHANISM. Those are all examples of things for which you have mechanisms.
They are also examples of things which are NON-living and NON-reproducing. How would you know? You can't identify what a "cause" is, therefore you can not determine what is "produced" by these unknowable "causes".No mechanism = no predictions about what the mechanism CAN or CAN NOT do. Translated: We thEn use the ASSUMPTIONS to the PREDETERMINED POLITICAL GOAL, and explain those patterns as THE WORK OF A JEW WIZARD.

I could tell you if it was a printer or a type writer. I could tell you if it was a laser printer, an ink jet, a dot matrix or a daisy wheel. I could tell you if it was the original or a xerox.And that's all if the printer is working absolutely perfectly. If the printer has a slight flaw, I can tell you much more about it.If it was done on a type writer, the FBI crime lab could tell you which brand, a range of model years for that brand _AND_ if they actually found the type writer, they could prove it was produced on that particular machine.This is just another example of you citing a subject you know NOTHING ABOUT and then claiming that because YOU KNOW NOTHING about it, no one can.AND, the whole basis of your argument is FALSE.You are claiming that if I had a piece of paper with writing on it, I couldn't tell you the mechanism involved. Then you NAME two mechanisms which could produce it.Do you get that?Do you see HOW that is different than what you are claiming?You are ACKNOWLEDGING THAT YOU DON'T HAVE _____ANY_____ MECHANISMS!!!None. Not "can't choose between two which are testable and reproduceable".You have NO mechanism save "Jew Magic" which you already admitted you don't believe exists. Again, you are demonstrating your complete ignorance. You can WATCH FILM of them creating it. I'm sure there is a museum at Mt. Rushmore which LITERALLY HAS SOME OF THE TOOLS USED!!!Further, YOU DO KNOW there are mechanisms for shaping rock. You've SEEN them in use.You do NOT KNOW that there are Jew Beams. No one ANYWHERE at ANYTIME has EVER seen ANYTHING LIKE JEW BEAMS in use.Therefore NO MECHANISM. No mechanism = no design. Can you give us examples of "other objects" for which NO ONE knows the mechanism?Remember, WE are not restrained by your EXTREMELY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE. Not are we limited by my knowledge. Someone, somewhere can tell you EXACTLY step by step how ANY given digital watch was made.Hell, there is a TV SERIES called "How It's Made" which WALKS YOU THROUGH THE PROCESS for TONS of different objects.Just because YOU don't know doesn't mean it's MAGIC!!!! It's irrelevant that you can't come up with relevant examples? Now THAT'S a quote for the ages. Do you HONESTLY not know the difference between GRAVITY and JEW MAGIC?I've give you a hint. I can TEST and measure GRAVITY. You CAN NOT test nor measure JEW MAGIC. That's why it's called "translation".Someone call Abe Lincoln to come and free this guy. I've been owning him so long I think I gotta give him 40 acres and a mule.

Now you are just flailing. Clearly you don't know anything about this topic. You shouldn't have used it as an example - especially when arguing with someone who in fact does know a lot about this topic.Try and find a better example. This one, for you, is an epic fail. Seeing or not seeing something get made is not the determining factor in detecting design. It's the ability to determine the MECHANISM used.If you DON'T HAVE A MECHANISM, you _CAN NOT_ distinguish between NATURALLY OCCURING THINGS and DESIGNED THINGS.I've already given you SEVERAL EXAMPLES of NATURALLY OCCURRING THINGS which _APPEAR_ designed. You have YET to come up with a single example of something which IS design but for which there can be NO mechanism.That's because you _CAN'T_ give anything as an example. And you know it. Anything which you _know_ is designed was created using a mechanism you can identify.The _ONLY_ example you can come up with is the very thing you are claiming.So, it's SPECIAL PLEADING. Therefore FAIL. Which are completely explained through naturally occurring mechanisms which we can detect, measure and reproduce in the lab.If we have a NATURAL solution to a problem, there is no reason to invoke BOTH a SUPERNATURAL JEW WIZARD _and_!! His MAGICALLY JEW BEAMS.You don't have a mechanism. We do. The end. You lose. If this is honestly true, then you are pretty fucking stupid.Seriously. You've NEVER looked under the hood of a car? You've never see the inside of a clock? You've never gone into your computer to replace RAM?No wonder you think everything is magic. You haven't got the first clue how ANYTHING works.What's next? "How does a pencil work?" "How do we know a sandwich was made?"You need to stop posting on the internet and go get some REAL WORLD experience. Of course I do. Not only do I know the mechanism of watch construction, I know the mechanism of the construction of ALL the PIECES in the watch.Are you _HONESTLY_ saying that you don't have the first clue how a small metal gear could be created? How a glass lense could be created? How things could be assembled one piece at a time?Are you actually making these claims? Are you retarded? Or are you simply being dishonest? I don't have to. I'm not the one claiming that computers were created by natural causes. YOU ARE.If YOU can't come up with an example, that's not MY PROBLEM - it's MY POINT!!! You have yet to make one.What you've done is repost and argument from a SELF PROCLAIMED FUNDAMENTALIST CREATIONIST about how HE THINKS the math works.However, since you can't site a SINGLE _REAL WORLD_ example of this math ACTUALLY proving anything, it's worthless.

Yet ANOTHER example of you not knowing what you are talking about. Geez, dude. This is getting bad.Scissors cut from both sides, for short distances and generally straight. Knives cut from one side and can swerve as they slice the page.Forensics can show whether or not it was scissors of a knife, and if it's an older pair of scissors, they can match the scissors to the cut.You lose. AGAIN. Seriously? You couldn't pick a WORSE example. I have a degree in Archaeology and flintnap as a hobby.You can ABSOLUTELY distinguish between an arrowhead and an arrowhead "shaped" rock.Bifacial flaking does not occur in nature. It BARELY occurs when people try to do it. It's TRICKY as hell.MULTIPLE bifacial flakes running down the length of a flint core requires hours of precision work. Work for which......wait for it...WE HAVE A MECHANISM!!! That may be your "POINT" but your __CLAIM__ is that NO ONE NEEDS TO KNOW HOW SOMETHING WORKS IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE DESIGNED.And _THAT_ is ABSOLUTELY false.Every single example you have given has been created by PEOPLE who KNOW what they are creating and are using mechanisms which can be reproduced.Just because YOU are ignorant doesn't mean THEY are ignorant. No. The mechanism of watch creation, even watch piece creation is OBSERVABLE. It can be (and is) recreated on a regular basis.The same is NOT true for Jew Wizard Jew Beams. They have _NEVER_ been observed. They have _NEVER_ be recreated.You are just PRETENDING that they exist to explain away shit you are too lazy to learn.You're entire argument so far is this:"Cars, watches, random notes and arrowheads were all created by a magical Jewish Wizard using Jew Beams because I, Smooth Operator, wasn't there when it happened."That's, as Sarah Pallin would say, "FUCKING RETARDED!!!!!" FUCKING RETARDED.

No, you are. You are constantly citing example of things that _YOU_ don't understand but which OTHER PEOPLE DO understand.No, two knives are not going to make the same cut as a pair of scissors. We know this because we have access to knives, paper and scissors and we can run tests on these different kinds of MECHANISMS.You _DON'T_ have access to Jew Magic, therefore you can not run tests on Jew Magic, therefore you can not determine if something was or was not created by Jew Magic. Because _AGAIN_ we KNOW the mechanism of wind and we know the mechanism of erosion. We also KNOW the mechanism of flintnapping.We can look at the RESULTS and determine CONCLUSIVELY the mechanism which was used to CREATE those results.YOU are claiming that you can look at the RESULTS and conclude things WITHOUT A MECHANISM. Which is _IMPOSSIBLE_!You CAN NOT determine that something was made unless you can determine HOW something is made. So, your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is based on a lie.You KNOW this is a lie.
I KNOW this is a lie.
Everyone reading this thread KNOWS this is a lie.Who EXACTLY are you trying to convince?!When you are __LYING__ it means that EVEN YOU don't believe the bullshit you are selling.If you ACTUALLY believed it, you WOULDN'T NEED TO LIE. The problem is that the rest of the world isn't nearly as stupid as you are. We do in fact understand HOW things are made.Just because YOU can't put a peanut butter and jelly sandwich together doesn't make it "Jew Magic!"

The difference is that OTHER PEOPLE are a lot smarter than you and have actually taken the time to learn a little something about what they are discussing.Your extremely limited understanding of science, logic and, frankly, honesty, puts you at a severe disadvantage when dealing with the real world.Your limitations are NOT the limit of other people's knowledge. The fact that you need me to explain that to you is pretty damn telling. Because wind erosion effects certain rocks in certain ways. Again, your limited knowledge of the natural world completely derails the conversation. No. It's a statement. You are STATING that the Rosetta stone was created naturally (or via Jew Magic) and YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT TRUE.Therefore you are LYING.You are DISHONEST.And YOU KNOW you are lying.Which means you KNOW you've LOST the DEBATE. Because there's NO REASON to lie if you think you are winning. That is the argument from douchbaggery.How do _YOU_ know that it was actually Jew Magic and not something that happens to be EXACTLY LIKE Jew Magic but technically is not?How do _YOU_ know that when you are typing a letter the computer is sending the message to the forum and not simply presenting a completely random sequence of letters which happen to follow a milisecond behind the exact buttons you happen to be pushing even though it's technically not related?How do _YOU_ know that YOU know anything rather than it just being a trick to make you THINK you KNOW something that you only think you know because you don't know that you know what is not known without the trick of knowing who knows how you know it?IT's all BULLSHIT.That ENTIRE FORM OF ARGUMENT is an acknowledgement that you have LOST THE DEBATE. And the design inference you are using comes from Dembski who admits to being a fundamentalist Christian who believes in the literal truth of the Bible.So, since he KNEW about the BIBLE before he did his design inference, the KNEW that it was designed. Therefore, BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT ABOVE, the inference is NULL AND VOID.You lose. Again. For the 12th time.