I don't base anything on location. I'm not sure that anything
is truly random. You are the one who evidently bases design upon
location. What I conclude is that there is a consistency of
logic by concluding that all has design in it -- even that which
appears to be random. I believe in a Designer who can design
things much more intricately than I can recognize. Now, I
recognize that my last statement involves faith, but I believe
that this conclusion is consistent logically. You want to make
"location" as the criteria. If I find a pair of tennis shoes
outside, am I to conclude that they evolved "naturally"?
I don't care for your example of the layered deposits for a number
reasons:
1. Lack of verification of a Designer does not establish "natural
causes"
2. It would lead to a technical discussion of deposits and too
easily lose the the logic in technical details.
3. We would both end up concluding our predispositions etc. etc..
4. It would not explain why you don't understand Stephen's conclusion
(which is what my question is about).
Bill K:> "Is that an unreasonable conclusion? Must I go to China
> and confirm that a certain individual there designed my
> shoes before my conclusion would be a reasonable one? For
> all intents and purposes this is an unseen designer as
> far as I am concerned."
>
Pim:> Of course there is more to it than just observing it.
Your answer doesn't begin to answer my question. Is it an
"unreasonable conclusion"? I would bet that my conclusions
in this regard would be "reasonable" if I were to take the
time and expense to research it out. I could take my
"hypothesis" and test my conclusions. We all know what the
results would be. However, it wouldn't be practicable to
repeat this for each and every thing. Each verification
should increase my confidence that for each design there is
a designer.
> That you believe that something is designed does not make
> it so. So my question stands, how do you conclude from
> looking at something that there is an intelligent
> designer ?
I didn't say that believing makes it true. I am questioning
your comment to Stephen Jones in which you said, ""How you
could conclude from looking at this that there is an
intelligent designer is beyond me." Don't you make
conclusions this way yourself? I won't speak for Stephen,
but as for myself, I see that patterns imply design and
design implies a designer. My question for you would be,
"Specifically what is it in the observation that would
cause you, Pim, to conclude that the "invisible creator"
conclusion in the tennis shoe case would not apply in the
other cases? Since you brought up location as a
distinction, what is there about location that makes the
conclusion as illogical?
Pim:> So my question stands, how do you conclude from looking
> at something that there is an intelligent designer ?
You're reading my messages. You are writing back. Don't
your responses back to me serve as evidence that you
believe that I am a human designer of sentences? You have
never met me. (I'm "invisible" to you). All that you know
of me is based upon that which I have designed. I suppose
you could respond to a bunch of noise which you believed
were patterns with no intelligence behind it, but I'll give
you more credit than that.
My bottom line is that I believe it is as natural for you
be see intelligence behind design as does Stephen. So, why
do you wonder why someone cannot conclude that when someone
sees design they shouldn't see intelligence behind it?
Shouldn't it be the rule rather than the exception? And
what would be the legitimate logical reasons for the
exception?