Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
TraderNik wrote:
Yes, archaeologists think humans designed Stonehenge. How did they come to this conclusion? The first thing they did was infer that Stonehenge was designed without any specific evidence of the designer. The second thing they did was assume that no one else was around to do the designing but humans. I don't dispute this logic. The key point here is that there had to be something about Stonehenge that caused the archaeologists to think it was designed in the first place before they brought humans into the story.
The bottom line is that you do not need to know the designer to infer design. You need to recognize what are some of the indicators of a designed artifact.
TraderNik wrote:
Why not? Didn't archaeologists find evidence that Stonehenge was designed?
TraderNik wrote:
ID and abiogenesis are both possible. I lean toward ID because of the evidence, not faith.
Yes, archaeologists think humans designed Stonehenge. How did they come to this conclusion? The first thing they did was infer that Stonehenge was designed without any specific evidence of the designer. The second thing they did was assume that no one else was around to do the designing but humans. I don't dispute this logic. The key point here is that there had to be something about Stonehenge that caused the archaeologists to think it was designed in the first place before they brought humans into the story.
The bottom line is that you do not need to know the designer to infer design. You need to recognize what are some of the indicators of a designed artifact.
TraderNik wrote:
Why not? Didn't archaeologists find evidence that Stonehenge was designed?
TraderNik wrote:
ID and abiogenesis are both possible. I lean toward ID because of the evidence, not faith.
Since, above, you dismiss faith (i.e., conclusions drawn from unverifiable/unfalsifiable data) as the basis for your leaning towards ID, this means that your evidence must be the product of conclusions drawn from verifiable/falsifiable data.
A conclusion drawn from verifiable/falsifiable data is synonymous with the scientific method.
OK, Z, show us the scientific evidence that causes you to lean towards ID.
kjkent1 wrote:
Do you want my answer or Z's answer?
Do you want my answer or Z's answer?
lol... now we're getting to the important stuff
As a bassist, of course Jaco's version was everything to me.
That's not true at all. I'm not sure what you mean. They came to the conclusion that humans designed Stonehenge because there was evidence that the structures were not a part of the natural environment. The inference you mention was made after that.
Z, the problem is you can't hide your weird logical non-sequiturs. This is pure you.
I used to hammer you so badly whenever you tried this kind of thing, remember? Ah, those were the days...
I was referring to ID of life on earth.
Quote from Teleologist:
TraderNic wrote:
They were able to distinguish Stonehenge from the natural environment because they recognized it as an artifact. And they recognized it as an artifact without knowing who designed it.
TraderNic wrote:
They were able to distinguish Stonehenge from the natural environment because they recognized it as an artifact. And they recognized it as an artifact without knowing who designed it.
Yes, they did know who designed it. Humans.