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,
The correct answers are all at post 543. You may have missed #2. The only one I know for certain that you got wrong is #4, at post 149, your answers at 166 and 173--175.
I think you missed the termite mound #6, but it's debatable. I'll leave it to general_re to give you the score.
My take on all of this is that nature (in #4) can fool us into thinking there's intelligent design involved. It's not really remarkable (in #2) that we can immitate nature. Anyway, I see no simple test for finding the trademark of the Intelligent Designer.