I'm just a spectator. The game was set up by you and general_re. I know of one item for certain that you missed, which gives you at least a 10% error rate. The final score isn't announced yet. For a concept which claims that design and nature can always be distinguished, it doesn't look good.
I know you didn't really study these images, but advocates of ID claim that they can just look at things and "it's just obvious, don't you know" that the Great Designer has left his signature. Personally, I don't think it's that easy, but I'm not the judge of this contest.
Good to have you back.
I know of one item for certain that you missed, which gives you at least a 10% error rate.
I think I mis-identified at least more than one pic. I'm curious which one you think I missed.
The final score isn't announced yet.
That must mean we're in overtime:^)
For a concept which claims that design and nature can always be distinguished, it doesn't look good.
The concept is a criteria based filter, and I am not aware of anyone who claims a 100% accuracy rate for the test. Like a medical test, some false negatives or false positives are bound to slip through the net. The goal is to minimize the inaccuracies as much as possible.
The following may resurrect our previous discussion on this thread, but I don't quite understand your distinction between nature and design. What if nature is designed? On the other hand, even if it were not, what are the hallmarks of design? The question is, where we know that something is designed, are there distinguishing traces of that intelligent agency that can be detected? I think the idea of the test is to be able to distinguish the 'accidental' and/or that which can be reduced to physical/chemical laws, from something that is the result of some intelligent agency.
Cordially,