Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9077 total)
117 online now:
AZPaul3, Dredge, DrJones*, dwise1, nwr (5 members, 112 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,090 Year: 5,202/6,534 Month: 45/577 Week: 33/80 Day: 20/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Crop circles and intelligent design
Peter
Member (Idle past 756 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 31 of 150 (615817)
05-17-2011 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by frako
05-13-2011 7:57 AM


Replication isn't proof...
While I suspect that most (if not all) crop circles are the works of humans ... being able to create something 'the same' is not evidence that that's how the original was done.

It only means it can be done that way, not that it was.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by frako, posted 05-13-2011 7:57 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by frako, posted 05-17-2011 6:35 AM Peter has replied
 Message 34 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2011 10:51 PM Peter has replied

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 32 of 150 (615819)
05-17-2011 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Peter
05-17-2011 6:00 AM


Re: Replication isn't proof...
Well it is the more sensible explanation, better then aliens are writing graffiti on our crop fields.

But the most compelling argument that the proponents of alien theory had was that you cant make crop circles if you are not looking from above to see what you are doing.

sure there is a possibility that alien punks are writing graffiti es on our crop fields but that possibility is very low since we have a better simpler and more reasonable explanation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Peter, posted 05-17-2011 6:00 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Theodoric, posted 05-17-2011 9:43 PM frako has taken no action
 Message 36 by Peter, posted 05-18-2011 6:18 AM frako has taken no action

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7337
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 33 of 150 (615888)
05-17-2011 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by frako
05-17-2011 6:35 AM


Re: Replication isn't proof...
But the most compelling argument that the proponents of alien theory had was that you cant make crop circles if you are not looking from above to see what you are doing.

Not compelling at all. It is easy to design something that you can't see as a whole. Humans have been laying designs out on a grid for millenia.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by frako, posted 05-17-2011 6:35 AM frako has taken no action

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6742
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 34 of 150 (615890)
05-17-2011 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Peter
05-17-2011 6:00 AM


Re: Replication isn't proof...
It only means it can be done that way, not that it was.

Except in those situations where the preponderance of the evidence (in this case all of it) is so compelling.

Since we have the evidence that even the most intricate of crop circles can and have been drawn by humans, together with the ones "certified" by the "experts" as being of alien origin having confessions of their human drawers, as well as the absolute lack of any evidence to non-human origins for any of the "unknown origin" circles, then in practical terms the reality of the situation is quite clear and hiding behind the scientifically acceptable view of tempered skepticism becomes just so much philosophical bull shit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Peter, posted 05-17-2011 6:00 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Peter, posted 05-18-2011 6:14 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 756 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 35 of 150 (615903)
05-18-2011 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by AZPaul3
05-17-2011 10:51 PM


Re: Replication isn't proof...
Relying on opinion rather than strict evidence is a mistake that is often made when dealing with 'unusual' or 'disturbing' phenomena.

We can only say that the balance of evidence is in favour of human-manufacture for crop circles.

We cannot say that that is 100% how they are all formed.

To say the above, given the 'level' of evidence is like saying all biological life was intelligently designed because it kinda look s designed.

You cannot have it both ways.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2011 10:51 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Modulous, posted 05-18-2011 1:01 PM Peter has replied
 Message 45 by AZPaul3, posted 05-18-2011 7:18 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 756 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 36 of 150 (615904)
05-18-2011 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by frako
05-17-2011 6:35 AM


Re: Replication isn't proof...
You reference to the liklihood of crop circles being of 'alien' origin is spot on ... stating that they are all definitely of human origin is incorrect.

Saying that the evidence strongly favours human-manufacture is OK.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by frako, posted 05-17-2011 6:35 AM frako has taken no action

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 781 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 37 of 150 (615921)
05-18-2011 11:08 AM


I'd be more inclined to believe ET crop circles if they appeared in the red wood forest or in the middle of the Amazon jungle. Now that would be a feat!

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by frako, posted 05-18-2011 12:26 PM 1.61803 has taken no action

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 38 of 150 (615931)
05-18-2011 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by 1.61803
05-18-2011 11:08 AM


*revving up my chain saw* any particular symbols you prefer

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by 1.61803, posted 05-18-2011 11:08 AM 1.61803 has taken no action

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1381 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 39 of 150 (615940)
05-18-2011 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Peter
05-18-2011 6:14 AM


100% proof is never needed
We cannot say that that is 100% how they are all formed.

This is true of all statements. The principle of fallibilism is usually tied together with the definition of 'know'. That is we know something when the balance of evidence is strongly in favour of the statement being true.

Crop circles are not special. We should be looking at computers, watches and mobile phones and wondering 'is some of this alien technology?' way before we give any consideration as to whether some stylistic depressions in crops might have sometimes been caused by aliens. And of course, all art gets thrown in here. We cannot say with 100% certainty that the Mona Lisa was painted by a human artist, after all...

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Peter, posted 05-18-2011 6:14 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Peter, posted 05-18-2011 2:48 PM Modulous has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 756 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 40 of 150 (615953)
05-18-2011 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Modulous
05-18-2011 1:01 PM


Re: 100% proof is never needed
The difference with your other examples as compared to crop circles is that, for a given (say) computer I can trace all of the components to their manufacturer, and back to the design company that produced them -- and in some cases to the group of design engineers who worked on the project.

Some-one saw the Mona Lise being painted and identified Leonardo as a human (I can't say he was mind ).

Some trails of evidence lead to conclusive proof ... the rest result in a balance of probabilities.

I just prefer it when the difference is stated -- rather than saying (e.g.) "I saw a bloke on the telly make one crop circle with a plank and a bit of wood so clearly that's how they were all made."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Modulous, posted 05-18-2011 1:01 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by subbie, posted 05-18-2011 2:59 PM Peter has replied
 Message 44 by Modulous, posted 05-18-2011 4:32 PM Peter has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 532 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 41 of 150 (615955)
05-18-2011 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Peter
05-18-2011 2:48 PM


Re: 100% proof is never needed
I just prefer it when the difference is stated -- rather than saying (e.g.) "I saw a bloke on the telly make one crop circle with a plank and a bit of wood so clearly that's how they were all made."

Well, how about this: I've seen several made by humans, including some that so-called experts later identified as made by extraterrestrials, and I've never seen any evidence whatsoever that any were made by extraterrestrials. Moreover, nobody has ever given a remotely plausible explanation for why a supposedly intelligent alien civilization would travel uncounted light years to come here and frolic in tall grass. Therefore, I conclude they have all been man made.

Is that better?

AbE

If it would make you feel better, I'd be willing to add this: My conclusion is fully supported by all available evidence, but tentative and subject to revision in light of new evidence or a better explanation for the evidence we see should one come along.

Edited by subbie, : As noted


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Peter, posted 05-18-2011 2:48 PM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Peter, posted 05-18-2011 3:05 PM subbie has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 756 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 42 of 150 (615957)
05-18-2011 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by subbie
05-18-2011 2:59 PM


Re: 100% proof is never needed
Much better.

In this you have stated your reasons, and that the 'all man made' part is your (personal) conclusion.

Nothing wrong with that at all.

On alien motivation:

If humans are willing to make crop circles just for the lark ... why would other intelligent life not have the same attitude? Maybe the trip to earth is just like nipping down the shops to us :0)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by subbie, posted 05-18-2011 2:59 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by subbie, posted 05-18-2011 3:15 PM Peter has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 532 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 43 of 150 (615959)
05-18-2011 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Peter
05-18-2011 3:05 PM


Re: 100% proof is never needed
I'd venture to guess that anyone who has ever dismissed crop circles as pranks holds virtually the same position that I do. They may not often express it all quite as explicitly as I did, but that's the gist of it. The only real question is why you feel this is a topic worthy of this depth of discussion just to sort out a few semantic short cuts.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Peter, posted 05-18-2011 3:05 PM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Peter, posted 05-19-2011 7:25 AM subbie has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1381 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 44 of 150 (615974)
05-18-2011 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Peter
05-18-2011 2:48 PM


Re: 100% proof is never needed
The difference with your other examples as compared to crop circles is that, for a given (say) computer I can trace all of the components to their manufacturer

A) You think you can, but you haven't actually done so. And until you have done so, you should consider the possibility of alien manufacturer just as much as with crop circles.

B) You can only track them back to the alleged manufacturer and designers. You have to prove 100% that your particular components were made there, and that the original design was thought up by a human and not given to a human by an alien inventor.

Some-one saw the Mona Lise being painted and identified Leonardo as a human (I can't say he was mind ).

'Someone said' never gets us to 100% proof or certainty. Besides, that someone may have seen Da Vinci at an easel, but since the painting presumably took a long time to do - they didn't see the majority of the painting.

You are also relying on simple witnesses to be able to tell that Leonardo was merely masquerading as a human. 100% I think not!

Besides if 'someone said so' is good enough then Doug Bower and Dave Chorley have stated that they made the first crop circle, and many subsequent ones.

I just prefer it when the difference is stated -- rather than saying (e.g.) "I saw a bloke on the telly make one crop circle with a plank and a bit of wood so clearly that's how they were all made.

If you step out of your house and you see some poo, I suppose you think to yourself 'just because I've seen dogs make similar looking poos, that doesn't mean that this particular poo is a dog poo'...and I imagine that you berate anyone with the nerve to casually assert that it is a dog poo for so recklessly dismissing the alien poo hypothesis.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Peter, posted 05-18-2011 2:48 PM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Peter, posted 05-19-2011 7:24 AM Modulous has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6742
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 45 of 150 (615986)
05-18-2011 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Peter
05-18-2011 6:14 AM


Re: Replication isn't proof...
Relying on opinion rather than strict evidence is a mistake that is often made when dealing with 'unusual' or 'disturbing' phenomena.

Not relying on opinion. Only the evidence.

We can only say that the balance of evidence is in favour of human-manufacture for crop circles.

No, we can say that all of the evidence, bar none, shows crop circles as human endeavours.

We cannot say that that is 100% how they are all formed.

Don't need to. All the evidence already says that for us.

To say the above, given the 'level' of evidence is like saying all biological life was intelligently designed because it kinda look s designed.

Doesn't follow. "Appearance" of design is an opinion. For crop circles, all evidence, and there are thousands of data points, all the evidence leads to only the one conclusion.

In science there are no absolutes so we leave the question open-ended pending further evidence as a matter of philosophy. But, there comes a time when when the evidence is so overwelming and conclusive it does science, reality, philosophy and society no good to wiennie around the obvious conclusion. The conclusion enters the realm of fact.

There has been no global flood in the past 500 million years of earth's history. Period. End of discussion.

There are no gods that poofed the universe, the earth and humans into being by fiat creation in the last 500 million years of earth's history. Period. End of discussion.

All Crop circles, all of them, are human creations not alien in origin. Period. End of discussion.

These are facts. Period. End of discussion.

OK. So I'm a wee bit off my feed right now. I'll get over it.

Maybe.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Peter, posted 05-18-2011 6:14 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Peter, posted 05-19-2011 7:09 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022