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.
Which is why, to my mind, it's worthwhile to begin with the things we know are designed by intelligent agency. If the design inference can reliably and repeatedly tell us things that we already know through other means, then we may begin to consider the issue of what it is telling us about things that we currently think might have naturalistic origins. But by that score, the design inference didn't do so well - no better than flipping a coin would have done, as a matter of fact.
Yes I did miss number 2, because as I had pointed out earlier, intelligent agents can mimic chance or natural laws. By #9, though I had caught on to the general's devious pattern:^) Also, I also mis-identified #4 as your neighbor's patio.
I think you missed the termite mound #6, but it's debatable. I'll leave it to general_re to give you the score.
Yes, I mis-identified #6 as an ant-hill.
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.
Yes, I also agree with you here; if there is a test for dectecting design, it is certainly not simple.
Cordially,