Joined: May 2007
|Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Oct. 22 2012,06:21)|
|Quote (olegt @ Oct. 21 2012,19:09)|
BTW TSZ- part of defintion of “artifact” is that there is no good natural explanation. And yes part of coming to a design inference means that there is no good natural explanation.
Let's open Merriam–Webster:
1 a something created by humans usually for a practical purpose;
1 b something characteristic of or resulting from a particular human institution, period, trend, or individual.
2 a product of artificial character (as in a scientific test) due usually to extraneous (as human) agency
The standard definition of an artifact is not something that cannot be explained through a natural mechanism. Instead, it is something that is positively tied to human agency.
If Joe had bothered to google the word "artifact", he would find the etymological meaning is "made by skill" and the origin of the word was specific to objects created via human skill.
Though not falling to the same level of stupidity of "ice is not water," still a major fail by the ever moronic existence that is JoeG, a bigger, dumber ass that any Kardashian appendage.
Yeah I know what you're saying, but that is way beyond Joe's ability.
I don't think you realize just how stupid Joe is.
.....oh wait you just said that.
Hey Joe what's your IQ?
(now we'll see some lies)
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his
clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin