Yes or no, and the reason why

Originally posted by lemon lime
Why would you need Occams' razor to explain how an archaeologist is able look at a stone that can function as a bowl and know if it's been naturally formed or not? And why would you need to consider if the appearance of human heads on Mount Rushmore were able to reproduce and evolve in order to decide if they were naturally formed or not? Please explain how your (one) answer applies in either one of those examples.

Why would you need Occam’s razor to explain how an archaeologist is able look at a stone that CAN function as a bowl and know if it's been naturally formed or not? (my emphasis)

No, nothing I said or implies this nor would I or anyone else who understands Occam’s razor would think that merely something "CAN" do something means it DID do that something in particular. If it CAN function as a bowl, then that would be an indication that it MAY have been used as a bowl but, with or without Occam’s razor, more info is needed before you can say whether it's probably been naturally formed or not. For example, you would need to know is there any known natural process that could account for how it formed the shape it did? Is there any indication of humans making it such as marks that look like they could be tool marks? Was the stone found somewhere where that type of stone doesn't naturally exist and no known natural process could have brought it there? Etc. Then finish off by using Occam’s razor to reach your final conclusion.

And why would you need to consider if the appearance of human heads on Mount Rushmore were able to reproduce and evolve in order to decide if they were naturally formed or not?

Extremely hypothetically, if they could reproduce and evolve then, depending on the other evidence (or, more relevantly in this case, the LACK of other evidence and specifically for unnatural design ), you may use Occam’s razor to rationally conclude that they were naturally formed and without involvement of an intelligence because you should assume the least assumptive explanation is (or 'may', depending on other evidence ) that they evolved. If they cannot reproduce and therefore cannot evolve, then that is one less explanation of how they could have naturally formed. But, because that doesn't by itself rule out another natural processes, you would still have to take into account other evidence and reasoning such as; what is the probability of somewhere on Earth natural corrosion forming a face shaped with at least that level of accuracy like you see on Mount Rushmore? -in this case, I don't know how to do the maths but I would intuitively guess that probability would be minuscule thus indicating unnatural cause.

Please explain how your (one) answer applies in either one of those examples.

I now just did and, if you had been paying close attention to what I said previously, I had already implicitly answered your second question above.
Does this mean you now acknowledge we (or at least I if you don't admit 'we' ) HAVE answered your OP question?

Originally posted by lemon lime
In a previous message you said you had given an answer, and then demanded I give you an answer (my answer). I can go find it, then copy and paste it onto my next message to you. But seriously, are you telling me you can't find it... why, too many pages to look through? Come on lazy bones, the least you can do is to keep track of your own statements.

Clearly I'm not "lazy bones" because I went and looked it up even though I should be working right now. So there!

😉

Anyway, on page three I asked for your response, then I asked you for an answer (!) and then on page 4 I asked you for "your thoughts" and later again for your response.

Granted, I did ask you for an answer, but this is the same word that you used in your OP. Surely, it's not an unfair question to ask back?

But if for some reason you really don't like to be asked for "an answer", I'll rephrase: What would be your "opinion" with regards to the question you asked in the OP?