Re: Blueprints vs. Bricks and Mortar

On Nov 21, 12:59 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 21, 10:06 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



It's funny that you've chosen this example.

The reason that an artificial origin makes sense for the crop circles is
that they are *circles*.  We're accustomed to intelligent beings
(ourselves) drawing circles.

That's not enough.  We also know that non-intelligent natural
processes don't produce intricate geometric designs in crops.  Both
elements are needed to detect true artifacts.

To detect "true artefacts" we need to have a canonical set of
observations that allow a law to be formulated that will permit
us to know the process of origin.

All you really need to know is how a particular feature, like crop
circles, could be produced by an intelligently designed mechanism of
some sort but by no known non-intelligent force of nature of any
kind.  That's all you need to know.  Determining the actual method
used is impossible.  All you can say is that at least a certain type
of method would have worked.

Nope. "Could have" is not sufficent. And, no it is not impossible to
determine an actual method of manufacture. Given auxillary information
characteristic of a given manufacturing process it is quite possible
to
reconstruct the process of manufacture of an object.



It is not about mere pattern
recognition. Natural systems, do indeed produce symmetric
and geometrical forms.

Not in crops they don't.  You have to understand the particular
material in question and how it interacts with non-intelligent forces
of nature to at least some degree before you can adequately
hypothesize the detection of a true artefactual feature expressed by
the material in question - be that material crops, radio waves,
granite, or DNA.

Indeed, you have to understand the process of origin before you
can claim you know the process of origin. We do not know
everything.



It is the question of establishing
the physical processes by which those patterns form.

Not quite.  It is a question of establishing the physical processes by
which a pattern or feature could form vs. those by which it could not
form.  Both elements are required.

Nope."Could have" is not sufficient. You actually have in hand
credible mechanisms established by scientific investigation. Simply
making hypotheses is not sufficient. I am aware that in Pitman-Science
the unconstrained ad hoc hypothesis, but in the real world it is not.



Intelligence doesn't make crop circles.

Only intelligent-driven mechanisms do make intricate geometric crop
circles.  No non-intelligent force of nature is able to do so.  That's
how you can tell that they are mostly like true artifacts.

Maybe not. Crystals can be quite complicated, but there is no
intelligence there.


What makes crop circles
or any other artefact is a manufacturing process, which is
established by experimentation coupled with information
from the presumed artefact that said process has actually
 been employed.

That's not enough.  Knowing how something could be produced by an
intelligence-driven mechanism is not enough to establish that it is a
likely artifact. You also have to know that it is well beyond the
powers of any known non-intelligent force of nature.

Nope. "Powers of nature" have nothing to do with it. For example
consider
the identification of shards of rock as primitive stone tools.
Experiments
show that at a certain level of simplicity naturally produced rock
shards
are virtually indistinguishable from similar shards made by human
hands
striking rocks together. It is certainly "within the powers of nature"
to
produce these rock shards, yet context might put the shards in the
manufactured category.

Furthermore, humans manufacture items by copying nature all the time.




As it turned out, the crop circles were hoaxes.  Now if the hoaxers had
chosen to trace out some weird wiggly curve familiar only to themselves,
  rather than a pure circle, it might be much harder to suspect that the
crop patterns were due to intelligent design.  Because we would have no
"control" to compare the curves to.

This isn't the reason.  The reason why wiggly curves would be harder
to detect as true artifacts is because non-intelligent natural
processes tend to produce features that lack high-geometric symmetry -
- i.e., like random appearing "wiggly curves".

The clues to the process of origin are contained in the object.
So, no, it would make no difference whether  the crop damage
was symmetric or not. The same auxilliary evidence for the
process of origin (disturbance of the ground, degree of bending
of the grain stalks, directions of bending and the like) is
the clue to the process of origin.

You're quite mistaken.  Take a look at the following picture of crop
circles, for example:

http://www.ufomystic.com/wp-content/uploads/crop_circles1.jpg

You don't have to know anything about ground disturbance (there
doesn't need to be any at all in fact), or the degree of bending of
the grain stalks or the direction of bending, etc., to know that
whatever the actually mechanism, it required the input of at least
human-level intelligence.  You know this because you know that there
are many potential human-driven mechanisms that could do the job, but
there are no known non-intelligent forces of nature, by any known
mechanism, that could come remotely close to doing the job.

That's how you can tell that such crop circles are almost certainly
artefactual.

In the absence of knowledge of method of manufacture these items
could be called "too complex to have been manufactured". Indeed,
"just looking at them" makes one *suspect* that these items are
manufactured. So what? It is only when we go out in the field and make
measurements
and observations that we actually can *show* that these items are
manufactured scientifically. You are so used to sloppy creationist
thinking that you think that leaping to a conclusion is science. It is
not.

-John




-John

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Blueprints vs. Bricks and Mortar
    ... if it were discovered inside a sequence conserved from ancient life ... that some non-intelligent force of nature did the job. ... responsible for the initial appearance of intricate geometric crop ... circles in England. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Blueprints vs. Bricks and Mortar
    ... that they are *circles*. ... some sort but by no known non-intelligent force of nature of any ... Only intelligent-driven mechanisms do make intricate geometric crop ... No non-intelligent force of nature is able to do so. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: When DID agriculture start?
    ... circles in arid regions with a flat topography. ... The topic under discussion was crop circles, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: OT: Fans of the Manchurian Candidate theory
    ... circles have been created with simple tools in a short amount of time. ... Even if 80% of crop circles are man-made, ... it's irresponsible for science to ignore it. ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: Does God like numerology?
    ... PI is a constant that appears everywhere in nature. ... other important dates or numbers crop up over and over again. ... Fire of Londomn 1666 etc, ...
    (uk.religion.christian)