# What are the odds that this is the result of wind erosion?

Never mind the caption. Assume a well-meaning librarian, given to confabulation, made it up.

How, exactly, do you know for sure?

Don’t tell us it’s “intuitive.” Why is it intuitive? How?

## 23 Replies to “What are the odds that this is the result of wind erosion?”

1. 1
wentzelitis says:

the pointer finger is longer than the middle finger.. no way it was designed on purpose. intelligence would have known to make the middle finger longer

2. 2
Charles says:

– numerous points of high conformity to a recognized pattern, such patterns being unattributed and dissociated with locale
– lack of any other wind erosion evidence proximate to object

– wind erosion fails to account for texture and color variation

– simplicity of wind vectors fails to account for complexity of eroded shaped

– composition of shape appears inconsistent with environment

Test: Observe over time to see if further wind erosion refines shape, erodes the shape, unaffects the shape.

3. 3
JGuy says:

It looks like an existing natural formation was modified by an intelligent agent.

Natural components of the artifact because shape is weird – the artist worked with what he had. Unless it was made of sand and a result of the limitations of piled sand.

It’s apparently intelligently modified because all digits of the hand are included (not more or less), and the perspectives of the fingers, palm and thumb (with quarter twist) and lengths of each finger are very approximately correct. And there are many features that are consistent with fine details to a human hand, including wrinkles in all the most same spots (even a wrinkle for the first segment of the thumb).. but none that stick out that are not consistent with a human hand.

Unlike comment #1, I do not see that the index finger is longer than the middle. Even if it were, some humans have the ratio like the above…where middle finger and index are approximately equal.

4. 4
sagebrush gardener says:

Well, just to be contrarian 😉 there are some natural features that appear to be designed with purpose:

http://images.nationalgeograph.....00x450.jpg

5. 5
SteveGoss says:

It’s tough to tell with an image this small, but it appears that there is a fault line about halfway through the palm, and a different strata of rock above that point. If this happened by erosion I would expect to see he same joint in the strata somewhere near the joint of the thumb.

6. 6
CuriousCat says:

Though I’m sympathetic to ID, I do not think that we are justified in drawing this kind of analogy with the nature. Similar to David Hume’s argument, we have no reason to believe that the mechanisms that the nature uses (or cannot use) is going to be similar to the mechanisms that the humans use (or cannot use). The reason why we do not see it plausible or possible that this sculpture could have arisen by wind erosion alone is mainly we have not experienced anything like this before. Mutation+selection mechanism may be “designing” other types of structures, not necessarily the one suggested here.

On the other hand, what I find it difficult to accept (and I find it difficult to understand how evolutionist accept that so easily) is that Darwinian evolution is SUFFICIENT in constructing the organisms. I think there’s the metaphysical view “what else can it be that drives the evolution?” behind that acceptance.

7. 7
Joe says:

News- For one you would need more than a photo to make any determination to its origin. You would have to go there and examine the structure and the surrounding geology. You would see if the structure and surrounding geology had a match, that is made from the same dirt/ rock.

Then you would look for signs of erosion, as well as signs for the earth pushing the original, uneroded rock, up to the surface. For erosion to be effective the eroded parts would have to have been made out of softer rock than what is left. You would look for signs of that. And lastly, but not least, you would look for signs of counterflow, ie work, which is the signature of an artifact.

8. 8
OldArmy94 says:

In a multiverse, there is a desert with a randomly placed natural feature just like this.

9. 9
weatherguy says:

There are certain structures in the natural world that seem to be thought out by an agent and constructed, i.e., arches. But we see they occur at many locations. We see the beginnings of arch formation in rock walls, and intermediate steps in the process to an arch.

Then there is this example, or Mt. Rushmore, or a wall of rocks carefully put together in a near perfect circle (SW Native Americans). The line is crossed between natural causes and agency. Is there ANY doubt agency was involved in the above?

I believe we over think the intelligent design issue. The idea that Darwinian Evolution is sufficient to create what we see around us is absurd. There is no room to be agnostic. The Good Book says in Romans 1 “Since what may be known about God is PLAIN to them, because God has made it PLAIN to them, so that they are without excuse.” (in not believe in God). The evidence is ubiquitous and compelling.

Do you bow to mutation and time, or the Almighty?

10. 10
JGuy says:

OldArmy94

In fact, there would be more than one. We’d just happen to be in one universe with one of those deserts.

11. 11
JGuy says:

p.s. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here to observe it. 😛

12. 12
lifepsy says:

Charles #2

– numerous points of high conformity to a recognized pattern, such patterns being unattributed and dissociated with locale
– lack of any other wind erosion evidence proximate to object
– wind erosion fails to account for texture and color variation
– simplicity of wind vectors fails to account for complexity of eroded shaped
– composition of shape appears inconsistent with environment

Argument from incredulity. Just because we don’t see the processes happening today, does not mean it couldn’t have formed over millions of years in the past due to naturalistic processes. To suggest otherwise is a god-of-the-gaps argument that only an ID-iot would propose.

13. 13
Charles says:

lifepsy @ 12:

Just because we don’t see the processes happening today, does not mean it couldn’t have formed over millions of years in the past due to naturalistic processes.

An argument from guilibility and evasion.

To suggest otherwise is a god-of-the-gaps argument that only an ID-iot would propose.

Your obvious intentional avoidance of quoting and addressing the “test” is classic refusal to submit naturalist claims to test for results you know won’t occur. No doubt you’ll now attempt to move the goal posts from the example as stated to something ambiguous and malleable, and then substitute computer climate models in liu of actual testing to demonstrate the “power of wind erosion”.

Everything makes sense in the light of erosion. – lol

14. 14
Graham2 says:

How, exactly, do you know for sure?

You apply CSI/FCSi or something and calculate it. The result will clearly show design.

See ? easy.

15. 15
wentzelitis says:

“Unlike comment #1, I do not see that the index finger is longer than the middle. Even if it were, some humans have the ratio like the above…where middle finger and index are approximately equal.”

i know it’s slightly off topic but they look dead near equal in the picture..and the pointer is on an obvious slant..when straightened would clearly be longer than the middle finger. i have never met anyone with a pointer finger longer than their middle finger before..strange as it sounds i have very small hands and like to compare hands with everyone i meet and have never witnessed this..and while i’m sure it exists, is very rare and no where near the norm of a human hand.

so now..would intelligent design be the cause for something that wasn’t accurate? apparently so . was the inaccuracy deliberate? that’s another question

16. 16
Robert Byers says:

There are so many points or options in the structure that are alike with the points of a hand that its impossible to be from the wing. Not just the points(twists and turns) but the points NOT there.
I use this to say marsupials are just placentals with pouches.
Same principal. Thousands of points of anatomy (marsupial wolf) alike with thousands of points of anatomy with our wolves equals the same wolf kind. The few points are just minor details from living in different areas.
marsupials are just placentals with pouches.
Convergent evolution is not right in saying all marsupials evolved from a first marsupial rat.
ID people could learn this too.

17. 17
CuriousCat says:

I have already posted once about this issue, but this is another point I’d like to point out. I should admit that this example is more interesting than it seemed to me at first sight 🙂

Not just the points(twists and turns) but the points NOT there

If I understand correctly, this argument says that we believe that this cannot be a result of the wind since there is no superfluous components in the sculpture. To show the fallacy in this logic, let’s apply the following two methods on the sculpture separately:

1) Add some bumbs to the hand in a number of places. Number of bumbs and shape of the bumps need not be designed but random (pour wind+sticking dust particles), or (actually this could be also “and”)

2) Pass wind+sticking dust over the whole structure (similar to adding noise to a deterministic process).

Now, unless (1) and (2) do not dominate the shape of the hand, we would still believe that hand cannot be the result of the wind alone (though wind has acted on it, its main contribution was to distort the original design).

In summary, my point is the artifacts that we find in the structure cannot be the proof that the whole structure is the result of a blind natural process (which is usually an evidence used by evolutionists). Even if the structure is noisy, we still recognize the design component.

18. 18
CuriousCat says:

Erratum: I think I have the used the term “artifact” incorrectly in the last paragraph of the post above. Sorry for that. I’m not from USA, and English is not my native language. The correct term could have been “error” or “unneccessary parts”.

19. 19
Robert Byers says:

Curious cAt.
Why a fallacy in the argument here.
That which would be superfluous would be that which is not possible in a created hand.!
The hand here doesn’t have bumps distorting it out of mind of being a hand!
If by wind/chance then it would easily have a finger four times the other fingers after excepting wing could make these fingers as it did.
Its a case of how deign is impossible to be seen as from chance.
This is a mere hand and never mind the glory of biology and atomic structure behind it.
This because its apparent chance could not do such a thing.

20. 20
CuriousCat says:

Why a fallacy in the argument here.
That which would be superfluous would be that which is not possible in a created hand.

You are completely right. I think I couldn’t make myself clear. I wanted to say that even if there were imperfections, errors, redundancies in this statue, we would still recognize the designed part. We would not say that since there are these redundancies or errors, this statue cannot be designed. Or we would not say that since these redundancies are likely to be produced by a natural process, the designed component is also likely to be the result of the same natural processes. However, in evolutionary theory, that’s exactly what’s done: lump everything as a result of natural processes. This is the logical fallacy I wanted to point out.

21. 21
CLAVDIVS says:

The base (below the ‘fault line’) is made of reinforced cement.

22. 22
bornagain77 says:

What are the odds that this is the result of chance and law?

How Do You Build a Transparent Cornea Out of Cells and Proteins? – January 10, 2014
Excerpt: The unique transparent quality of the cornea arises from its remarkably ordered architecture of aligned and regularly spaced fibrils with a small, consistent diameter (?30 nm), which are arranged, not into fibers or fascicles as in most other tissues but in superimposed, flattened layers, or lamellae. Lamellae and their component collagen fibrils exhibit preferential orientations throughout the corneal thickness, which appear to be closely related to the biomechanical loads to which the tissue is subjected. In adult vertebrates, lamellae traverse the full diameter of the cornea for most of its thickness, and in the avian eye — the subject of most developmental studies — undergo a gradual rotation in their orientation with depth. Individual collagen fibrils within midstromal lamellae also appear to traverse the entire diameter of the cornea, a distance of ?11 mm in adult human eyes. The extraordinary level of order in matrix organization within a hierarchy of fibril, lamella, and stroma overall appears to reflect a considerable level of regulatory influence presumably involving both cell activity and intermolecular interactions.,,,
We’ve been discussing design just in the cornea — one little organ in a developing bird embryo. Now extend that thought to the rest of the eye, the brain, and the whole bird that will hatch out of the egg in a few days.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....80991.html

Just tell it to me straight Darwinists, what are the chances?

So you’re telling me there’s a chance – video