CSI and Design

There you go again. It's still circular - we can't conclude it was polished until we conclude that it was designed, and we can't do that until we have a designer. The only entities in the universe that we know of that design are humans. If humans aren't the designers, then who is? If there's nobody there to do the designing, then how can you conclude it was designed? If human design can't be the explanation, then prima fasciae we reject design, because there's nobody left to do the designing.What you're trying to do is reject an observed mechanism for the shape of something - natural, unguided processes - for an unobserved one - some unknown designing entity. Why on earth would a reasonable person reject an observed mechanism for an unobserved one?

Well, given that I pretty much have only the same communication with you, how is it that you conclude that I'm actually a human being and not simply internet line noise? You've never seen me or met me.

What? You most certainly can. Please refer to your own polished rock in a stream example.

If what you meant was "smooth", then, why didn't you just say so? Moreover, why would smoothness be an indicator of design?When you said "polish", and meant it as evidence of design, I assumed you were referring to characteristics most associated with mechanical polishing - circular buff marks, etc.If you're just talking about smoothness, though, why on earth would that suggest design?

No, I think you are incorrect. If NASA finds a bicycle wheel on Mars, then by your logic the designers must be human since we don't have proof that Martians existed.You say that existence of a designed object is proof of a designer, but what you either intentionally or accidentally miss is the point that there are some things that can exist that can imply either design or chance.To steal from Rrhain, finding a pile of rocks in a particular pattern in an area where there is no distinct evidence of human activity can imply design or chance. You can take the Occam's razor approach and choose chance since you don't have evidence of humans living in the area, but that doesn't mean those rocks definitely weren't arranged by a human being.Obviously one can't conclude that humans were definitely there to arrange the rocks, but that isn't the point: one can still legitimately hypothesize that a human being might have been there because that explanation is still consistent with the information available.Take that back to the Mars example. We know designers (humans)exist. We know what designed objects look like. We know some objects may be designed but still appear to be the result of natural forces and vice versa. If we identify something that fulfills the latter criteria on Mars we can infer that it occurred naturally or by design if both conclusions fit all the available evidence.We do not need to have any other evidence of Martians to come to this conclusion. Is it PROOF martians existed? Of course not. But it suggests they may have existed until further evidence shows otherwise.

I'm not talking about smoothness, I'm talking about something that was polished. Wind, water, sand, and designers can all polish something.That's the point. The point is that there are times when one can discover an object which may have come into existence by natural or designed means and one can't always tell which. Should such an object be discovered where no humans have ever been known to exist, I doubt most scientists would take as blase an attitude as "well I have no evidence of a designer, therefore it is positively not a designed object."Do you honestly believe otherwise?

I'm seriously beginning to wonder.

Well, until there's some evidence that Martians exist and ride bicycles, then yes, it's a bicycle wheel from Earth. After all, plenty of objects from Earth are already on Mars. Why not a bicycle wheel? Right, and part of that information is that humans can travel, and therefore can concievably have gone to the place where the rock pile is.So again, we don't conclude design simply because of the qualities of the object in question; we conclude design because of what we already know about the designers. But if the only designers we know about cant't be responsible, then concluding design is rejecting known mechanisms for unknown ones, and who the hell does that? Do we, though? What do designed objects look like?All your examples so far are objects that you present, a priori, as designed objects, and then ask me if I'd conclude that they were designed.Of course I would. You keep telling me that they're designed. You need to take a step back, though - here's an object. Tell me how you would determine it was designed or not.But one circular example after another doesnt get us anywhere.

No, the attitude they would take is "I have no evidence of a designer, therefore design is not the most likely explanation."Do you honestly believe otherwise? Do you think scientists go around proposing unknown mechanisms and entities out of whole cloth when known mechanisms and entities will do just as well? It's called "Occam's Razor." Maybe you've heard of it?

yes, but you said that no designer can be concluded to have existed from designs alone. that statement includes humans we don't know about, other than by their written records.but anyhow. since i'm not attached to this argument, understanding your point, i'll gladly concede it if you answer my space aliens send us a message question...

not true. any concious animal is capable of it. chimps routinely build tools and elephants paint pictures. heck, we think velociraptors devised traps for their prey.that's a kind of design.

a good question.how do i know?

No, I disagee. Observation of humans tells us much about their behavior and capabilities - most relevant is the fact that humans are motile. Therefore it's fairly reasonable to suggest human design even if there's no other evidence humans were there, but only if the place in question is one that humans could concievably travel to.In other words, I don't need to know that humans were here, only that humans could get here. I don't think they could do it in one message, unless they spoke English, and could respond rationally to our message and not just repeat it. What you're asking is, essentially, "how many messages does it take to have a conversation?"

That's a very good point. Obviously, design is not the sole province of human-scale intelligence.

I suspect Crashfrog may be a computer program or 'argue bot' by the name of Bellicose 3000, but I have no evidence of a designer.