Is my rock designed?

Hi IamJoseph,Please stop posting to this thread. Thanks.

SavageD, I am also a creationist/IDst. The best way I have found to respond to the numerous responses in various posts, is simply extract out of each one what is important and worthy of attentionIf you see the same arguments you have already addressed in a previous post, reproduce that reference or simply remind them it has been addressedIt is also helpful to remind them of what they have failed to address, which happens quite often.Stick with it and dont get frustrated. The usual MO of these fellas is to berate, belittle and pretend they have addressed all the issues at hand. Ignore those tactics and press forward However did you notice the place up top where it points out how many visitors are on the site. Your words may not be falling on deaf earsKeep going, dont give upDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Great! And answering the OP would definitely be important and worthy of attention! Have at it!

He doesn't need to here, Panda. He's already addressed this many times in other threads.

But surely he would want the kudos of answering the question that no-one else has successfully answered in this thread?
Well, we'll see...

IMHO that isn't the right question to ask. The question should be either:1/ is the process that allowed this rock to form designed or not or,2/ more philosophically, is the process that allowed me to develop so that I perceive the rock in that form designed or not.I have no problem with ID when it is a philosophical understanding of first cause, but I do have a problem when it is used as an argument against science.

But ID proponents claim to be able to identify if something is designed or not.
Therefore asking them to describe how they identify if something is designed seems to be a fair request.
The OP made it reasonably clear in his posts: he is not after the answer 'Yes' or 'No' - he (and I) want to know 'How'. If we know how IDists identify if a rock is designed, then surely we can then apply the same technique to answer your questions.

Don't we know how a rock is formed? We know what the contituent parts are, how they combine etc. How then do we apply that technigue to understand why anything that we perceive exists?I think that something you're getting at here has gone over my head. (It's crowded up there. )

Yea well we also know how humans evolved, and just about how everything else got to be on this planet and we still find people claiming slilly things like 6000 years ago the world got created by a magic man who made everything there is back then

Then the ID you don't have a problem with is a strawman because it's never been philosophical anything, it's ALWAYS been an attack on science. ID (as purported by CID Propontists) is allegedly a substitution for biological evolution, so we need not ask any philosophical questions since biological evolution doesn't address any either.Many many many threads (I've OP'd one myself) have been started asking for ways to test for design. Not a single CID Propontist has EVER provided a working study. Let's get a working physical test before we wander into the mess that is philosophy.

Are you joking? I can't tell.

Yes. But that does not tell us how to identify if it was designed.
The OP (and I) simply want to know how IDists identify if something is designed or not.
The example of a rock is meant to be an uncomplicated test subject. Yes. But that doesn't tell us if the rock was designed.
And rocks can be created on purpose by humans using the same processes as nature uses, so knowing the process still doesn't answer the question "How can I use ID theory to figure out if my rock is designed or not?". If an IDist would post that technique then maybe I could answer your question.
But currently, I do not know what their technique is and therefore cannot suggest how it could be used. It is just as likely that my explanation is lacking in clarity. ID theory claims to be able to identify if something is designed.
The OP is simply asking for a description of how it would work, in practice, on a rock.

I posted on this thread simply because I have a problem with the term "Intelligent Design". Whe I first heard the term I assumed it would be something that I would adhere to. The I find out it is really a termed coined to try and achieve a political end, and the term has been twisted into meaning somethig that is different than the one would logically assume.My view is that evolution has the appearance of ID, and you would logically think that there is no reason for them to be mutually exclusive. It seems though that the political movement believes that ID argues against evolution and so once again a pefectly useful term is corrupted. (The same can be said for the term creationism. )

When Intelligent Design is capitalised it is then just part of the political machinations of biblical literalists. Many (most?) christians are happy to accept that evolution happens and that it was 'started' by god.
But that would be 'intelligent design' and not 'Intelligent Design'.

Only the sheerist stupidy would make and involve themselves with such idiodic comments as those I have quoted abovePhilosophy, real philosophy, is both reality and logic based. All "working physical test" begin and end with a logic and philosophical approachit still hasnt Dawned on any of you fellas that ID and Creationism dont begin with the relative design involved in any living thing. It begins with the a logical proposition, that states because things work in an orderly fashion, in coherent harmony with its parts, to a verifiable purpose, design is a very real probabilityThis is all the argument from desing needs to make it VALID. It doent need to produce a designer, it doesnt need A TRADEMARK on it.Its not necessary to PROVE design is true, for it to be compltely valid as an explanation, the likes of which are irrefutable.Now that I have established what it is, let the person that believes he can refute this proposition step up to the plate and do soAs I go to Yahoo and watch and read the numerous, so called fallicies of creation and ID, I weary for one skeptic to actually present what the argument from design is actuallyNot understanding what is involved in ID or Design, goes a long away in misunderstanding and misrepresenting the whole position to begin withDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.