Comment #19359

Posted by MReap on March 9, 2005 10:05 AM (e) (s)

Camel Rock north of Santa Fe is pretty impressive, too. Don’t have a photo or a link, sorry.

Comment #19360

Posted by steve on March 9, 2005 10:08 AM (e) (s)

You also must not have google, or you could have posted 2,000 links to photos of it.

Comment #19363

Posted by steve on March 9, 2005 10:21 AM (e) (s)

They won’t interpret this as evidence. They won’t admit who they think the designer is, but it’s not That designer, if you know what I mean. IDiots will declare this a coincidence. Now if it looked like Jesus, or maybe Dale Earnhardt’s car, then we’d be talkin evidence.

Comment #19364

Posted by GCT on March 9, 2005 10:23 AM (e) (s)

Hey, I know design when I see it!  And that is design….I think….or maybe not.  I know, it’s a false positive!

Comment #19373

Posted by Bob Maurus on March 9, 2005 12:06 PM (e) (s)

Nah, GCT - it can’t be a false positive, they’re impossible. Dembski says so. It’s got to be a false negative.

Comment #19376

Posted by Timothy McDougald on March 9, 2005 12:40 PM (e) (s)

Well,
Call me irreducibly perplexed! I not sure if it’s a false positive or a false negative so can we at least agree on the false part?

Comment #19377

Posted by Greg on March 9, 2005 12:44 PM (e) (s)

It’s all in the cropping.  Pull back a little and you don’t see a Mogan David at all, I bet, but just a bunch of rings.  This doesn’t even rise to the level of a Rorsach test.

Comment #19380

Posted by Bob Maurus on March 9, 2005 01:40 PM (e) (s)

Timothy,

If I call you irreducibly perplexed, are we then going to have to decide whether that means you were designed? It’s all so comfusing. Maybe JAD can clear it up for us.

Comment #19381

Posted by Timothy McDougald on March 9, 2005 02:08 PM (e) (s)

Bob,
Since there was a particular issue “comfusing” you I guess that makes it specified perplexity.

Comment #19382

Posted by Emanuele Oriano on March 9, 2005 02:26 PM (e) (s)

Gentlemen,

considering your arguments are too cogent for me, I think I’ll Intelligently Resign.

Comment #19383

Posted by Timothy McDougald on March 9, 2005 02:39 PM (e) (s)

Emanuele,
Are you trying to be an Icon of Intelligent Resign?

Comment #19384

Posted by Emanuele Oriano on March 9, 2005 02:59 PM (e) (s)

No, Tim;
I simply see the evidence, and it points to the irrefutable conclusion that all life is resigned…

Comment #19385

Posted by jeff-perado on March 9, 2005 03:58 PM (e) (s)

I see this is the international “day of really poor puns”….

Maybe the DI, or even AiG, will issue a press release’ “Intelliegent Design has led to the discovery that the Matrix is real. All hail our one true designer, the Architect.”  Of course, it will be peer-reviewed and published in “Architectual Digest.”

Comment #19386

Posted by jeff-perado on March 9, 2005 04:01 PM (e) (s)

Maybe a little too Doug Giles-ish a reference??

Damn you Dennis Miller (when you were funny)!!!!!!

Comment #19387

Posted by Ed Darrell on March 9, 2005 04:30 PM (e) (s)

Architectural Digest?  They’ll have AiG on their faces …

Comment #19388

Posted by Bill Ware on March 9, 2005 04:36 PM (e) (s)

I like the “cosmic happy face” on Mars (2nd link, last picture) myself.

Sorry to see “The Old Man in the Mountain” fell down. I guess it was reducibly designed after all.

Comment #19431

Posted by Ed Darrell on March 10, 2005 02:46 AM (e) (s)

The Star of David is a six-pointed figure.  If one puts round objects of equal size together, one gets six-sided figures as a function of mathematical law; think of bee-designed honeycombs.

How is this structure unique in this particular ranunculus?

Post a Comment