[Replying to post 36 by rikuoamero
The first time I saw Rushmore (albeit in a photo, I've never been to the States), I recognised it as an object of design, because I am fully aware that rocks do not naturally fashion into faces, and not just any faces, but faces of arguably the four most famous US presidents.
would it make a difference if you didn't recognize them? I do live in the States but have never been to Mt Rushmore, I have a small bust of Abe on my desk which doesn't have as good a likeness - so I think they did an incredible job, anyway..
They'd have no reason to. I take it you didn't want to comment on the rest of my response to this "Rushmore/Watchmaker's argument"? About why it is that you and people like yourself who argue the argument start off by talking about an object whose design is non-controversial?
proof of principle I suppose, I do believe that biology and physics are even more emphatic, objective evidence of ID than a mere watch or sculpture, but that the objectivity is the problematic part... we are born into a world of incredible works of engineering and art, far beyond our own capabilities, and take it all for granted as 'natural' - we know nothing else..
But I take your point- there are many ceremonial/ burial mounds in my general region which were assumed to be natural, but with aerial photography and ground sonar etc revealed themselves to be artifacts.
So to use that analogy, similarly cells were vague blobs of protoplasm in Darwin's day, he did not know they contained sharply defined designs, digital information systems with nano-machines and parity bit error checking- our picture is much sharper now.
Then please explain to me why, in that other thread, the person arguing that computers lack a creative skill (that we humans have) was not able to tell that the image I posted was from a computer?
Not looking at it, but there may not be much to measure, a monkey might type a three letter word given an hour, but not the first page of War & Peace given a million years.
& one page of text is selling the universe and life in it, a little short, wouldn't you say?
Please relate where in the Watchmaker's Argument or similar arguments mathematics are talked about.
It's implicit: if forced to explain the existence of a watch without creative intelligence.. you'd end up having to invoke an infinite probability mechanism to create it accidentally- the odds of chance creation are so low... sound familiar? multiverse?
and yet the Watchmaker's Argument is only ever proposed by what group of people? Care to tell the class?
skeptics of atheism, like Lemaitre, Planck, most of humanity.. crazy weirdos like that?
but a secular forensic scientist or archaeologist employs the same scientific principle, ID provides a superior explanation where the shoe fits, regardless of the implications