Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 55 (9054 total)
87 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 86 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,178 Year: 5,824/14,102 Month: 410/335 Week: 16/83 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Crop circles and intelligent design
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6076
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


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 responded

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

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6076
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


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 responded

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

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6076
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 56 of 150 (616132)
05-19-2011 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Peter
05-19-2011 7:09 AM


Re: Replication isn't proof...
The issue I have -- and the only reason I'm going on is that the standard of proof being asked for human manufacture of crop circles is of the same order as that being presented for ID (to try to tie this back to the OP).

If we relax our standards of evidence and 'proof' on one arena, we open a portal for others.

I'm against relaxing standards

Understood. And I have the same issue which is why I insist this "standard of evidence" is not strict enough.

There are crop circles. All evidence shows that crop circles are human endeavours.

What other conjectures are there for the formation of crop circles?

Lots of them, to be sure. Aliens, Gaia Energy, Intellegent Locusts, 12-banded Armadillos with a penchant for geometry, Magnetic storms on Magrathea slipping through wormholes in interuniversal spacetime.

What evidence is there to support any of these other "theories"?

None whatsoever.

Why, then, must we even conjecture any possibility of these other theories in the analysis no matter how vanishingly small? We do not. These other vectors have no reason to be considered, so they do not exist. There is only the one conclusion left. Humans made the crop circles. All of them.

If we find a crop circle, it does not matter if we have the names, addressess and ID numbers of the makers. Nor does it matter if we puzzle a bit over how such an itricate design could have been achieved. There is only the one conclusion with any logical realistic reason to be considered. There is only the one conclusion on the table to choose. None others exist.

That same standard follows for Noahian fluds, the existance of god(z), IDioticy and a whole raft of other BS. When all evidence points to only the one conclusion and all other suppositions remain unsupported then there is no reason to leave the question open-ended even for the sake of scientific philosophy.

We must, where appropriate, leave the conclusion less than 100% when there is evidenced reason to do so. With crop circles and the like, however, paying lip service to this requirement leaves the door open to the nutjobs and any rectal ejaculations they want to spew.

There are times when we as scientists must turn to the world, stop the weennie wishy-washy philosophical hand wringing and say:

"This is the way it is. Period. End of discussion!"

Not,

"This is the way it is within the error bars achieving a high level of confidence (though we can never be 100% absolutely certain)."

Remember that half the people on this planet have below average intelligence and a good protion of the rest are looking for any excuse, no matter how small, to take advantage.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Peter, posted 05-19-2011 7:09 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Peter, posted 05-20-2011 5:47 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6076
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 89 of 150 (617252)
05-26-2011 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Peter
05-25-2011 6:07 AM


Evidenced Speculation
Since we are talking aliens let's stay with that in this example.

Alien Life

With all due respect for Dr. Sagan his quip "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" makes for a nice sound bite but is hardly definitive and is hopelessly open to mis-understanding and intentional abuse.

The view that there may be other life in our galaxy is purely speculative since we have no hard direct evidence of such,
but it is a reasonable speculation based on the hard evidence we do have.

[aside]
This point is illustrative only. This thread is not about the existence or not of alien life. Do not go there!
[/aside]

We have many hard facts (life on this planet, carbon chemistry, self-assembly of organic compounds, extremophiles, Drake equation, probable numbers of stars, planets, moons, etc.) that are the evidentiary basis for the speculation that other forms of life may exist in our quadrant of the galaxy.

The speculation is indirectly evidenced to such a degree that it deserves to be considered as scientifically viable until other evidence confirms or refutes its viability.

Crop Circles

All the hard evidence we have show that crop circles are of human design and make. There is no evidence, no matter how indirect, that allows us to speculate any other cause. There is no reasonable chain of logic from any other evidence by which we can entertain the remotest speculation, let alone a vanishingly small probability, that aliens, or Straggler's Celestial Cow farts, or any other proposition can even be considered.

Because of this we can say to the scientifically inclined that if we see a crop circle we can be assured, to a scientific certainty (as certain as science allows), that it was made by humans.

My point is that, to the general public, who are too damn stupid en mass to understand the rigors and limits of science, that we drop the "scientific" from scientific certainty and tell the public in a no uncertain non-wishy-washy way, what we all know anyway.

Crop circles are of human design. No flatulent bovines, no ETs. Period. End of discussion.

Intelligent Design

We already know that irreducible complexity is not either. That specified complexity is a mathematical failure. That at its most intellectual ID is the product solely of personal emotional incredulity, and at its base is nothing more than a subterfuge perpetrated on the public with the goal of being allowed to brainwash children into uncritical allegiance to a bloodthirsty religious cult.

Here, as well, there is no hard evidence in its favor. Neither is there any evidence, no matter how indirect, that allows us to give the proposition any viability for even a cursory examination. There is no reasonable chain of logic from any other evidence by which we can entertain the remotest speculation, let alone a vanishingly small probability, that ID might be real.

What I am saying is that once an idea is on the table, then it must be analysed approriately if rejection of it is to be considered scientific.

The point being made here is that for alien-made crop circles as well as for ID, they do not exist on the table to be considered scientifically or otherwise. Neither has earned the minimum efficacy level necessary, even as speculation, to be on the table at all. So, in a scientific sense, neither has any legs on which to stand and neither need be considered since they do not exist.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your message 74:

Stephen Hawkin once said 'I would never say that time travel was impossible, because the person I speaking to might be from the future' or something like that. I take that to mean that he cannot rule it out as a possibility due to lack of evidence/knowledge.

No. There are mathematical solutions that hint that some level of time travel might be possible. See Kip Thorne and wormholes. Time travel is indirectly and speculatively evidenced and can reasonably be considered where appropriate, which at present is nowhere but in the movies.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : Doncha just hate proof-reading a dozen times just to find errors and other thoughts right after hitting submit?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Peter, posted 05-25-2011 6:07 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Peter, posted 06-09-2011 11:49 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6076
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 94 of 150 (619451)
06-09-2011 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Peter
06-09-2011 11:49 AM


Re: Evidenced Speculation
There is a possibility that alien life exists within our galaxy, even though we have not yet found any.

As evidenced speculation, yes, alien life in our galaxy is a viable possibility.

'absence of evidence ...':

In what way can that be misinterpreted or abused?

Having no evidence for something does not, logically or otherwise, allow one to claim that that 'whatever' does not exist.

In the absence of direct evidence, if there is enough evidence from other fields that indirectly impact on a speculation's efficacy then, again, consideration is warranted.

If there is no evidence, direct or indirect, then a speculation is worthless and not worthy of any consideration.

Dr. Sagan's comment, to those who want to "believe" sans any reason other than faith, sounds as if every speculation should be considered and I do not believe this was his intent.


Crop Circles:

What hard evidence of human manufacture?
That a handful of crop circles have been created by humans?
Is that ALL the evidence?

'No Reasonable chain ...'

Here's a chain:

Alien life is a possibility.
Alien life more advanced technologically than humans is a possibility.
Alien life visiting earth is a possibility.
Aliens making designs in crops is a possibility.

Alien life is an evidenced speculation. It has viability to be considered.
Technological life has very weak indirect evidence and is a questionable speculation.
Alien visits to Earth have no evidence, direct or indirect, and our present knowledge of physics precludes a viable possibility.
The chain is broken. Aliens making crop circles has no viability and need not be considered any more than wormholes from Magrathea.

Why is the idea that aliens make crop circles so widely ridiculed?

Because it's bullshit.

With ID we rule it out by refuting the claims of 'proof' presented by the suggusters

Exactly. There is no evidence, direct or indirect, to maintain the speculation. And the evidence we do have contradicts the proposition. There is no viable reason to give it any consideration.

That's not what happens with crop circles or bigfoot or the loch-ness monster or Alien spacecraft .... but why?

I beg to differ. These are un-evidenced speculations like unicorns and flatulant cosmic cows, in the same boat as ID, and are worthy of no consideration, just like ID.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Peter, posted 06-09-2011 11:49 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Peter, posted 06-10-2011 7:23 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6076
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 100 of 150 (619591)
06-10-2011 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Peter
06-10-2011 7:23 AM


Re: Evidenced Speculation
"If there is no evidence, direct or indirect, then a speculation is worthless and not worthy of any consideration."

I have to strongly disagree with the above.

(snip)

Indirect evidence is still evidence, it's just less reliable.

I do not see a point of disagreement here.

Technolgical Life = questionable:

Why so? The earth is a relatively young planet in a young solar system. If we accept that there could be life elsewhere in the galaxy, we also have to accept that some of that life emerged before life on earth.

This is part of the indirect evidence and is extremely weak. There is no evidence that sentience or technology is inevitable in a life system, nor is there any evidence, even should it arise, that it is a long-term phenomenon.

We are lost in both space and in time.

Until there is more viable evidence this poposition is very weak at best.

"Alien visits to Earth have no evidence, direct or indirect, and our present knowledge of physics precludes a viable possibility"

Except of course for all those eye-witnesses and abductees -- oh but I forgot, all of that gets ruled out due to incredulity. Sorry.

Anecdote? Surely you jest.

The hard evidence is that Human perception is nortoriously poor and the human propensity to embellish is well established.

That is why anecdote is not acceptable.

And the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

And there's the MoD conclusions that UFO's represent a real and present threat to national security (OK, OK, so they might be a foreign power with hi-tech spy planes).

Are you suggesting some world-wide all-governments conspiracy spanning multiple generations without any leaks? Amazing.

But I'm just trying to point out that 'no evidence' is not the case.

Given all the above, this is indeed the case.

The evidence presented is about the unknown process that creates the crop circles, and how humans cannot exactly duplicate the 'real' phenomenon.

Someone has evidence of this "unknown" process? Really? Where?

Whose incredulity determind that humans "cannot exactly duplicate" a crop circle? All present direct evidence shows that humans are more than capable in this genre.

Do you assume humans could not possibly have built the pyramids as well?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Peter, posted 06-10-2011 7:23 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Peter, posted 06-14-2011 8:15 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6076
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 106 of 150 (620374)
06-15-2011 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Peter
06-14-2011 8:15 AM


Re: Evidenced Speculation
Don't get me started in the Pyramids!!

I wouldn't dare go that off-topic. We'd get moosed in a heartbeat.

Technological Life:

Technological life developed on Earth. We therefore must conclude that tech-life is a possible consequence of (well for me) natural evolutionary processes.

(snip)

I appreciate that the coincidence of tech-life's depends on it's actual rarity (which we do not know), but it makes it somewhat more than 'weak' in the inference stakes.

My heart wants to believe but the evidence is too weak. The materials requirement for 3rd generation stellar systems, the billions of years required for life to evolve out of the single celled stage, etc. And now we are seeing paleontologists and neurologists hypothesizing that the rapid growth of the hominid brain to human proportions may be the serendipitous result of a unique confluence of events on the African plains. Rare indeed.

I concede nothing by agreeing with you, though the evidence seems to indicate sentience and thus technology, may be rarer and younger than we would like to believe.

The thing about eye-witness accounts that increases credibillity is multiple, independant corroboration. The problem is when non-objective criterion get involved and all the debunking starts. When looked at, the alternate 'sciencey' explanations are more far fetched than a straightforward 'that's what happened' one.

What, you don't like ball lightning and moon beams bouncing off of Venus?

Then there are the mass hallucinations surrounding Our Lady of Fatima.

And the thousands of people who all saw spaceships in the Phoenix Lights.

In the Phoenix scenario, everyone reported different configurations of alien spaceships until one rendering was published in the Arizona Republic. Then everyone saw the same thing.

Okey dokey.

Eye witness is a joke in science these days. And even the DA'a won't take it into court without separate evidence aside from the eye witnesses. The Defense council will kick their teeth in with expert testimony of just how bad human recollection really is.

Sorry, Peter. This dog don't hunt.

UFO's ... well they ARE real ... UNIDENTIFIED being the operative word, but there is not a government on earth that hasn't conceded that there are sightings which have not been explained.

Granted. But this has nothing at all to do with aliens. Unidentified does not equal aliens.

Unless you want to say that the unidentified robbers of a west Phoenix bank yesterday means they must have been aliens. Though I suppose in another context you would probably be right.

Governments cannot keep secrets -- and they know it.

That's why they let loose the loons along with the genuine article.

Riiight.

"Someone has evidence of this "unknown" process? Really? Where?"

http://www.openminds.tv/crop-circle-science-101/

Oh good. BLT Research.

- They find iron droplets in the ground and this says "aliens"? Well, they weren't found outside the circle in the rest of the field! And did they dig up and destroy the entire crop to reach this conclusion? Or the field next door? Or any other field anywhere?

No.

Well what of the composition of the iron. You can get a good idea of where and how it was smelted by a good Mass Spectrograph.

Say what?

- They found node elongation in the wheat shaft and this says "alien"? But they can duplicate this by nuking it in a microwave! Hell this happens every August in Kansas after a rain. The combination of excessive heat and moisture.

here

Cannot warrant the informational content ...

I don't blame you. It sucks.

Oh, and there is nothing in there or any other woo crop circle woo site that is inconsistent with plank-and-board or plank-and-chord or Stroh's-and-hose or any of the other techniques used by the human Picassos of Plants.

Edited by AZPaul3, : fixed link

Edited by AZPaul3, : one more thought ... i hope

Edited by AZPaul3, : spelins

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed "moosed" to "Moosed".

Edited by AZPaul3, : Too far, Moose. This is MY message, not yours!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Peter, posted 06-14-2011 8:15 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by subbie, posted 06-16-2011 2:52 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 111 by Peter, posted 06-21-2011 12:04 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6076
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 109 of 150 (620466)
06-16-2011 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by subbie
06-16-2011 2:52 PM


Re: Evidenced Speculation
The issue is not the court ruling whether to admit eye-witness testimony, the issue is the Defense negating that testimony with expert witnesses.

This may help some.

And one more here

There are a number of cases listed where the court allowed the Defense to bring experts against eye-witness testimony.

In the second source note the caution the author gives against trying to do so in any Texas case.

Edited by AZPaul3, : added info about link.

Edited by AZPaul3, : clarity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by subbie, posted 06-16-2011 2:52 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6076
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


(2)
Message 146 of 150 (702173)
07-02-2013 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Modulous
07-01-2013 1:29 PM


Re: motivations and reasoning
You also acknowledge that you can think of no motivation for expending the resources to travel however many light years in order to make patterns in alien crops. You say this isn't a problem, but obviously it is.

Do not dis the power of the Artist's Muse.

The entire alien history and a major portion of their society's wealth culminated in the production of the works to satisfy the Muse.

Right now our alien Warhol is showing the 3-d renderings of its work done in that startling new medium, Terran Domestic Grain Fields.

The whole art world is reeling with amazement at such beauty.

"Well worth the million year effort!" - Schreel Puunmenshsal, Art Critic, Magrathean Sun-Times.

"If we had another society to bankrupt we should do more of this!" Nmjdfkspwr Frlhytrrcb, Professor, School of Art, MaxiMagalon University.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Modulous, posted 07-01-2013 1:29 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Dogmafood, posted 07-02-2013 9:19 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021