Intelligence Test: open thread

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Intelligent Design proponents claim to be able to distinguish design from non-design. Here’s an easier task. Look at the inscription in the photograph. Is there any way to tell how old it is? I can tell you the stone turned up in an excavation in 1996 in the Pyrenees. Is there any way to tell if the marks are meaningful or gibberish?

0

64 thoughts on “Intelligence Test: open thread

  1. GlenDavidson,

    Why would design be a coincidence? If something is a whim its coincidental? And even if your totally bizarre inference made any sense whatsoever, you double down with ANOTHER mindless jump, that life can’t be a coincidence? Why not?? Does that even have meaning?

    Its like saying, a Tiger, what a paradox. Or, they are sisters, the answer is 2.985.

    0
  2. So let’s summarize, for those at home, what we learned today.

    The best way to detect design, is to look at it, and consider if it seems designed. Got it. Thanks Keiths.

    There is no such thing as someone committing an immoral act, as long as they don’t think it is. Manson, Damler, OJ Simpson, Pol Pot, Nazi concentration camps, denying gay rights, lynching blacks, ..there is nothing inherently immoral at all about their actions according to the atheists. The people who tortured Matthew Brady, not immoral. They didn’t have a problem with it, so who is to judge? Got it, thanks, Keiths, Allan, Alan, Omagain, Glen, Creo… (I can’t include Richard because I don’t think he understands).

    A whim is the same as a coincidence (we have no idea a coincidence for what) and a coincidence is too unlikely to be an explanation for anything (wtf?).
    Thanks Glen

    0
  3. A whim is the same as a coincidence (we have no idea a coincidence for what) and a coincidence is too unlikely to be an explanation for anything (wtf?).
    Thanks Glen

    No, you really don’t understand, do you?

    What’s sad is that you never even try to comprehend anything beyond your simple-minded nonsense.

    Glen Davidson

    0
  4. GlenDavidson: Do you even understand the importance of explaining patterns using observed causes?

    Patterns? Observed causes? More Glen riddle speak.

    The only reason you call it a pattern is because it looks like a pattern. Just as Keiths said, you look at it and take a guess. You didn’t observe any causes.

    0
  5. phoodoo: Why don’t we just ask Lizzie then…oops!

    making stuff up is just more Phoodooish. Here is a guy that only flings poop, he’ll never float any opinion he has to defend. Why does ID have such pathetic foot soldiers?

    0
  6. Boy, I can’t wait for Phoodoo to end his senseless babbling and give us his professional determination on the designedness of the engravings and share the cutting edge ID research that he used to reach his conclusion.

    0
  7. phoodoo,

    Shouldn’t you be jumping all over yourself and your fellow creationist travelers who believe in, worship, and promote the ‘Abrahamic God’ who, according to you believers, worshipers, promoters, the bible, and numerous other books, TV shows, movies, sermons, etc., etc., etc., is the most murderous monster of all time? ‘God’ the sky daddy is responsible for ALL deaths of everyone and everything, isn’t ‘he’?

    Have you dashed any babies against rocks lately? Just wondering.

    0
  8. Haha, even Lizzie can’t stand it here, why would you think he would want to.

    Explain.

    And if you can explain that, there are about 1500 questions (about all, IOW) that you’ve ducked about creationism/ID.

    Glen Davidson

    0
  9. phoodoo:

    Just as Keiths said, you look at it and take a guess.

    What I actually said:

    Because I’ve thought about it, and the obvious explanation — that the inscription was carved by the humans who were around at the time — is far more plausible than any hypothesis involving ants or other “accidental” causes.

    phoodoo:

    There is no such thing as someone committing an immoral act, as long as they don’t think it is.

    What I actually said:

    Judged by some subjective moral standards it was immoral, but not when judged by others. It was immoral by my own subjective standards, and happily many people share that subjective assessment.

    phoodoo:

    A whim is the same as a coincidence (we have no idea a coincidence for what) and a coincidence is too unlikely to be an explanation for anything (wtf?). Thanks Glen

    What Glen actually said:

    I wonder why we’re supposed to abandon the lawful workings of heredity as an explanation, when life exhibits the organization arising from the limits of hereditary limitation acting through time, in order to say that such organization is nothing more than coincidence.

    I contend that coincidence is an entirely implausible “explanation” for life’s patterns.

    Phoodoo, you’ve already persuaded us of your dishonesty and your incompetence. No need to keep hammering the point home.

    0
  10. keiths: phoodoo:

    Just as Keiths said, you look at it and take a guess.

    What I actually said:

    Because I’ve thought about it, and the obvious explanation

    Sorry keiths, but probably most of the people who read here know what words mean.

    Because you thought about it…and the obvious explanation is…

    You looked at it and guessed.

    Another flameout by keiths.

    0

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.