Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Can we distinguish human v. natural excavations?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Large geometric shapes are being discovered beneath the Amazon forest. Have the discoverers evaluated their origins correctly? If so, why? Is there any way to distinguish between artifacts caused by human and extraterrestrial agents?
Once Hidden by Forest, Carvings in Land Attest to Amazon’s Lost World By SIMON ROMERO January 14, 2012

RIO BRANCO, Brazil — Edmar Araújo still remembers the awe.
As he cleared trees on his family’s land decades ago near Rio Branco, an outpost in the far western reaches of the Brazilian Amazon, a series of deep earthen avenues carved into the soil came into focus.
These lines were too perfect not to have been made by man,” said Mr. Araújo, a 62-year-old cattleman. . . .
The deforestation that has stripped the Amazon since the 1970s has also exposed a long-hidden secret lurking underneath thick rain forest: flawlessly designed geometric shapes spanning hundreds of yards in diameter.

Alceu Ranzi, a Brazilian scholar who helped discover the squares, octagons, circles, rectangles and ovals that make up the land carvings, said these geoglyphs found on deforested land were as significant as the famous Nazca lines, the enigmatic animal symbols visible from the air in southern Peru.

“What impressed me the most about these geoglyphs was their geometric precision, and how they emerged from forest we had all been taught was untouched except by a few nomadic tribes,” said Mr. Ranzi, a paleontologist who first saw the geoglyphs in the 1970s and, years later, surveyed them by plane.

Hundreds of Geoglifos Discovered in the Amazon 2010.01.20

Geoglifos is the term applied in Brazil to geometric earthworks discovered after recent deforestation. Geoglyphs are not new in South American archaeology, but these are different—massive earthworks of tropical forest soil rather than desert surface alterations. The Amazon Geoglifos present geometric forms; circles, squares, ellipses, octagons, and more, with individual forms up to several hundred meters across. Some are connected by parallel walls. Their distribution spans hundreds of kilometers, and much of the area remains forested jungle.

POSTCARDS FROM THE AMAZON: Massive clues of Amazon area’s past 2010

The geoglyphs in Acre were made by digging ditches into the earth to create shapes like circles, squares, and diamonds. They are outlined by ditches up to 20 feet deep and range from 300 to 1,000 feet in diameter.

Squares

Circles

Ranzi geoglyphs Google search

—————————————-

For a serious discussion see Kairosfocus’ comment

Comments
Joe,
The EVIDENCE says it is designed. I don’t need a quote
So quote the EVIDENCE instead.
The theory of evolution posits a mechanism of accumulations of random mutations, Peter. If you need a citation for that then you are just a useless dolt.
That's not from "the theory of evolution", that's quote from a single person. And in any case, you've just disproved your own claim! Please provide evidence that "evolution" mandates that the sole mechanism of evolution is "accumulations of random mutations". Perhaps you don't realize that claims made in the past can become inaccurate the more is found out. So perhaps it was once thought that accumulations of random mutations were the totally of evolution, but things have moved on. But that is a somewhat nuanced position that given our interactions over the last day or two I don't expect you to be able to appreciate. And you disproved your own claim because the quote your provided inferred that was no longer the case, hence your claim is invalid. Lynn might have been taught that when she was originally studying but that is no longer taught. And hence you undermine your own claim! So I'd suggest that your knowledge of what evolution is is perhaps 25 years out of date??Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
Yes it would be nice if evos published evidence for their claims in peer-review. But that ain't going to happen, is it?Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
So, if you think it’s designed, then you know it’s designed.
{snip}
“Well man, considering that there are 14 bullet holes in him, blood splattered all over the room, and bloody fingerprints that are not the victims all over the room… the design inference is that he was murdered. Unfortunately, design principles prevent us from looking into the nature of the designer. See you later. Bye now.”
{snip } The design inference does NOT prevent anyone from trying to determine who, how, when or where. Dembski says this in "No Free Lunch".
Tell us Joe, what is the context of a protein that is used to determine design? What is the context of an organism that is used to determine design?
The same stuff I have already told you- namely that chance and/ or necessity cannot produce it and it meets the design criteria. IOW the lack of evidence for your position is key in the design inference and that bothers you. Good. ------------------- Joe lay off the ad hominems and focus on substance with polite discourse. Do not accuse of moral failing without serious evidence. DLHJoe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
Stonehenge- no one knew humans did it until after many, many years of investigation. And we still don't know for sure.
“We have determined that agency was involved in the murder, but it’s a particular type of agency that is immune to further investigation so we’ll just leave it at that”.
Nice strawman.Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
Peter:
Yet you can’t provide a single quote from a published paper that supports you claim that ATP is designed.
The EVIDENCE says it is designed. I don't need a quote. The theory of evolution posits a mechanism of accumulations of random mutations, Peter. If you need a citation for that then you are just a useless dolt.
I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species.-Dr Lynn Margulis
Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT
Joe,
By the evidence left behind. Ya see we can and do tell if agency involvement was required.
Can you give me an example where it was determined that the agency involved was of an *unknown* type like your purported designer is? Otherwise your analogy is pointless. "We have determined that agency was involved in the murder, but it's a particular type of agency that is immune to further investigation so we'll just leave it at that". That's called a science-stopper right there.Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT
ogre:
got it thanks. You can’t determine if something is random or not.
No, obviously you don't get it.
How then should you even begin to determine if something is designed by humans, aliens, or God?
By the evidence left behind. Ya see we can and do tell if agency involvement was required.Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
So, if you think it's designed, then you know it's designed. If you think it's not designed, then you know your calculation is wrong. Got it thanks. In other words, the principles of ID are useless. They don't actually tell you anything you didn't already know before. I wrote this a while ago, why ID isn't used in forensics. "Well man, considering that there are 14 bullet holes in him, blood splattered all over the room, and bloody fingerprints that are not the victims all over the room... the design inference is that he was murdered. Unfortunately, design principles prevent us from looking into the nature of the designer. See you later. Bye now." Tell us Joe, what is the context of a protein that is used to determine design? What is the context of an organism that is used to determine design?OgreMk5
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
KF,
Even a flat faced cuboidal monolith made from polycrystalline materials, has recognisable FSCO/I pointing to design. As of course is pivotal in a certain famous Sci Fi movie.
Do you have a specific FSCO/I value for that you can give me? If not, how do you know it has *any* at all, if you can't put a figure on it.Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
Joe,
They can assume human but that is about it until they start investigating and gathering data.
SO when I ask who you are assuming the designer is with regard to ATP that's personal is it? If funny how you can make all these claims but when asked to support them you run away.
And taht includes seeing and understanding the total failure of your position.
Yet 99.9% of all working biologists disagree with you. Even Behe accepts common descent, which you do not.
What is your position? As far as I can tell yours is the position of a belligerent howler.
While your position appear to be making claims about papers that the authors themselves do not make then getting all huffy when asked to support your position.Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
So requesting equivalent behavior is threadjacking. Got it, thanks for the double standard. So, I asked a couple of directly relevant questions about CSI and all that stuff, but you aren't going to answer them because you are offended. This is the best evidence that ID has nothing. If I had a new notion that had evidence (as JoeG claims) and can be used to figure out all kinds of stuff, I for one, would be telling everyone. I'd be telling random people on the street. But you can't even determine if a single string is random or designed. Furthermore, you guys don't even know the difference between calculations of information on a random string or a non-random string. Finally, you cannot explain anything about the actual calculation. As we've already shown, it's meaningless because of the strawman you guys have erected. It is indeed a good day.OgreMk5
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
Joe,
Not all DNA has to be designed
Can you give an example? And does this un-designed DNA have dFSCI present?Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT
I got it thanks. You can't determine if something is random or not. How then should you even begin to determine if something is designed by humans, aliens, or God?OgreMk5
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
Joe,
Wrong again Peter- many millions of people accept design and see the evidence for it in peer-review.
Yet you can't provide a single quote from a published paper that supports you claim that ATP is designed. Very telling.
Notice there isn’t anything in any peer-reviewed paper taht supports accumulations of random mutations didit.
That's because nobody is making that claim.
The theory of evolution makes that claim Peter. What is wrong with you?
The please provide a citation.
And those biologists don’t have any evidence to support their claims.
Would these be the same biologists who claim that "accumulations of random mutations didit"? It's funny how every single word in the paper that you claim supports ID is accurate yet those very same biologists suddenly don't know what they are talking about with regard to how ATP came to be. Very strange. Can you explain why you support biologists who say what you want to hear and then claim that they have no evidence when they say what you don't want to hear?Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
Wrong again Peter- many millions of people accept design and see the evidence for it in peer-review. Notice there isn’t anything in any peer-reviewed paper taht supports accumulations of random mutations didit.
That’s because only you are making that claim. Nobody else is.
The theory of evolution makes that claim Peter. What is wrong with you? And those biologists don't have any evidence to support their claims.Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
Joe,
The evidence points to design, Peter. The EVIDENCE in those papers.
Funny how you are the only person in the world that can see it then. I guess you are just special!
Notice there isn’t anything in any peer-reviewed paper taht supports accumulations of random mutations didit.
That's because only you are making that claim. Nobody else is.
So by your “logic” your position has absolutely nothing.
Except the support of 99.9% of all working biologists.Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
The evidence points to design, Peter. The EVIDENCE in those papers. Notice there isn't anything in any peer-reviewed paper taht supports accumulations of random mutations didit. So by your "logic" your position has absolutely nothing.Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
Peter:
Yet you won’t be able to educate anybody until your claims have been tested, like all scientific claims are tested.
LoL! The claims of your position can't be tested! That is the whole point...Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
Then it seems to me what you need to do is publish your work in a peer reviewed journal, and then when critics come along you can simply ask them to address your already published work and rebut that. This is a blog. Not a journal. You can give "cases" forever and it won't stop the same questions being asked each and every time. Whereas if you published just the once you can wait until critics address that instead leaving you free to carry on with the ID research.Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT
Then I'm not sure how you intend to meet your goals of
Let us free ourselves to think about what the design paradigm can allow us to do with all sorts of scientific and related fields. We have a revolution to build.
Yet you won't be able to educate anybody until your claims have been tested, like all scientific claims are tested. Saying that because it's "education" does not give you a free pass for accuracy.Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
I read those papers and saw no mention of mention of "ATP was designed" or "An intelligent designer must have done this" or just "ID" or "Intelligent Design". Please provide a quotation that supports your claim from those papers.Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
Joe, How does evolution depend on the origin of life? We do not have to know the origin of life before we can examine evolution.
And I don’t want to conflate them- evolution and the ooL, it is just that they cannot be separated.
Darwin himself separated them explicitly. He explained the origin of species, not the origin of life.
As I said the ONLY reason to infer evolution via stochastic processes is if the ooL is via stochastic processes. Logic 101
Please tell me a *single fact* about the origin of life that ID has uncovered that Darwinism has not. If you can't then I'll stick with what we know already, logic 101.Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT
Not with intellectual cowards such as yourself, anyway.Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT
From what I've seen so far Joe you are not capable of actually having a discussion.Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
I cited the research in my blog article you read, duh.Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT
Nothing I care to discuss with you.Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT
How does the design depend on the designer? We do not have to know the designer before we can determine design or not. And I don't want to conflate them- evolution and the ooL, it is just that they cannot be separated. As I said the ONLY reason to infer evolution via stochastic processes is if the ooL is via stochastic processes. Logic 101Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT
PG: Your string of comments just above is revealing subtexts that show the problem we are talking about. That tweredun, on empirically tested and reliable sign is a significant point, and in response to a challenge above, I have supplied a case. The matter is ignored and the next line of attack is taken up as though nothing significant happened. That is NOT due docility before evident and highly material truth. KFkairosfocus
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT
PG. Maybe it has never dawned on you that I have no interest in playing the journals game, my angle is educational mostly. And, there is now a collection of something like 50 peer reviewed items out there to show this is serious, even in the teeth of the determined opposition that does not shun to stoop to censorship and expulsion. Of course, you are being tangential with hints of subtexts, you know the precise problem that even this thread is showing. KFkairosfocus
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT
Joe, Yet the design depends on the designer, exclusively. So you want to conflate evolution with the origin of life but won't accept the same when it's applied to your position? Why?Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply