Changes

:::: I was unable to carry out that test, as I wouldn't know what Allah's name written in Arabic script looks like.  But that's irrelevant.  You are comparing three different things here:  1) something ''designed'' to be ambiguous (the ink blots); 2) something that normally occurs naturally combined with the ability of people to "see" recognisable shapes (the clouds); and 3) something ''designed'' to be recognisable (the cave painting).  That people "see" recognisable shapes in things that are not ''designed'' to be recognised has no bearing on whether something ''designed'' to be recognised is being correctly recognised.  If you want to suggest something else that it could be and explain why your suggestion is better than the dinosaur explanation, feel free.  But your only attempt at directly addressing the dinosaur explanation was that people see what they want to, which I refuted (in this specific case) by pointing out that it was recognised as a dinosaur by someone who ''didn't'' want it to be a dinosaur.  Therefore, you've offered no effective rebuttal of the claim at all.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:41, 10 February 2008 (EST)

:::: I was unable to carry out that test, as I wouldn't know what Allah's name written in Arabic script looks like.  But that's irrelevant.  You are comparing three different things here:  1) something ''designed'' to be ambiguous (the ink blots); 2) something that normally occurs naturally combined with the ability of people to "see" recognisable shapes (the clouds); and 3) something ''designed'' to be recognisable (the cave painting).  That people "see" recognisable shapes in things that are not ''designed'' to be recognised has no bearing on whether something ''designed'' to be recognised is being correctly recognised.  If you want to suggest something else that it could be and explain why your suggestion is better than the dinosaur explanation, feel free.  But your only attempt at directly addressing the dinosaur explanation was that people see what they want to, which I refuted (in this specific case) by pointing out that it was recognised as a dinosaur by someone who ''didn't'' want it to be a dinosaur.  Therefore, you've offered no effective rebuttal of the claim at all.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:41, 10 February 2008 (EST)

::::: I am surprised that a net savvy person such as yourself could not find out what "Allah" looks like in Arabic script.  Here is a [www.trekearth.com/.../Turkey/photo387386.htm link] (rather nice photo I think).  See it in those clouds now?  I wasn't so sure myself.  Maybe that's just me.

::::: I am surprised that a net savvy person such as yourself could not find out what "Allah" looks like in Arabic script.  Here is a [http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Middle_East/Turkey/photo387386.htm link] (rather nice photo I think).  See it in those clouds now?  I wasn't so sure myself.  Maybe that's just me.

::::: Now, you say that I am not comparing apples with apples.  I disagree.  I think all three concepts you refer to are very closely related.  The question in each case is: Can I see something in this picture?  You can see a dinosaur in the picture on my user page.  Bethany can see a kangaroo.  Frankly I don't think the picture is detailed enough to make a good case for either.  Where are it's front legs/arms?  In fact, where is its other back leg (if indeed it is supposed to be a creature at all).  That's why it's like an ink blot.  Sure it may be that the cave dweller who drew it intended that it be recognised.  Unfortunately however, the picture is so lacking in detail that, without more, it is a meaningless squiggle that only wishful thinking can transform into a recognisable creature/plant/object.

::::: Now, you say that I am not comparing apples with apples.  I disagree.  I think all three concepts you refer to are very closely related.  The question in each case is: Can I see something in this picture?  You can see a dinosaur in the picture on my user page.  Bethany can see a kangaroo.  Frankly I don't think the picture is detailed enough to make a good case for either.  Where are it's front legs/arms?  In fact, where is its other back leg (if indeed it is supposed to be a creature at all).  That's why it's like an ink blot.  Sure it may be that the cave dweller who drew it intended that it be recognised.  Unfortunately however, the picture is so lacking in detail that, without more, it is a meaningless squiggle that only wishful thinking can transform into a recognisable creature/plant/object.