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