Engineering Intelligent Design Mind Physics

Eric Holloway: Why engineering can’t be reduced to the laws of physics

Spread the love

When we reduce the engineer’s mind to a computer, the source of innovation disappears:

The fundamental problem of modern science is the problem of innovation. Where does novelty come from? This problem shows up in physics, biology, artificial intelligence, and economics…

The source of this information puzzles the respective fields. The puzzle is due to the fact that, while each field can describe the target precisely, using its axioms, none of the fields can describe how the target came to be hit…

The one area where we do not encounter this mystery is engineering. In engineering, the cause of purposeful arrangements of parts is well known. This cause is engineering innovation. Engineers create the technical inventions that run our economy. However, once we get into the engineer’s mind, the mystery reemerges.

Eric Holloway, “Why engineering can’t be reduced to the laws of physics” at Mind Matters News

He argues that the problem how to account for innovation cannot be solved by anything built upon the laws of physics.

128 Replies to “Eric Holloway: Why engineering can’t be reduced to the laws of physics

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    One telling word: CREAT-ivity

  2. 2
    Mac McTavish says:

    With engineering I see the laws of physics as setting the boundaries. Human ingenuity works within these bounds, stretching them when possible, to create things.

  3. 3
    ET says:

    Naturalism and materialism only have those laws to work with, along with sheer dumb luck. Those laws are incapable of producing coded information processing systems. Living organisms are ruled by coded information processing systems. Naturalism and materialism FAIL, miserably, to account for the existence of living organisms.

    It is beyond the time to move past materialism and naturalism

  4. 4
    EvilSnack says:

    I notice the same thing with mathematical proofs. Sometimes a mathematical proof is easy to find and easy to understand, sometimes it is difficult to find and difficult to understand, and sometimes a proof is difficult to find but easy to understand. But never is a proof easy to find but difficult to understand.

  5. 5
    Seversky says:

    Human engineering wouldn’t exist without human beings. Human beings (and this Universe) wouldn’t exist without the laws of physics. So you could say that engineering does arise from the laws of physics, albeit indirectly.

  6. 6
    ET says:

    This universe and the laws of physics wouldn’t exist without an Intelligent Designer.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky claims:

    Human engineering wouldn’t exist without human beings. Human beings (and this Universe) wouldn’t exist without the laws of physics. So you could say that engineering does arise from the laws of physics, albeit indirectly.

    Seversky is basically claiming that human beings arose via the laws of physics, (“albeit indirectly”)

    Yet Darwinian evolution itself is not based on any known law of physics,,

    As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”

    The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14)
    Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.
    ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf

    In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on.
    ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.
    http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

    Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    – Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
    https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf

    Moreover, aside from Darwinian evolution itself, since it is not based on any known physical law, being outside the purview of physical sciences, Quantum Mechanics itself also proves that humans did not arise via the laws of physics (“albeit indirectly”)

    As Steven Weinberg, an atheist himself, states in the following article, In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
    In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
    Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

    In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.

    For instance, this recent 2019 experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established that “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.

    More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019
    Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
    https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html

    Experimental test of local observer-independence – 2019
    Excerpt: The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them. In quantum mechanics, the objectivity of observations is not so clear, most dramatically exposed in Eugene Wigner’s eponymous thought experiment where two observers can experience seemingly different realities. The question whether these realities can be reconciled in an observer-independent way has long remained inaccessible to empirical investigation, until recent no-go-theorems constructed an extended Wigner’s friend scenario with four observers that allows us to put it to the test. In a state-of-the-art 6-photon experiment, we realise this extended Wigner’s friend scenario, experimentally violating the associated Bell-type inequality by 5 standard deviations. If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free-choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way.
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.05080.pdf

    Moreover, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:

    Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014
    Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics.
    “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?”
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm

    And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Abstract: In this Letter, we present a cosmic Bell experiment with polarization-entangled photons, in which measurement settings were determined based on real-time measurements of the wavelength of photons from high-redshift quasars, whose light was emitted billions of years ago; the experiment simultaneously ensures locality. Assuming fair sampling for all detected photons and that the wavelength of the quasar photons had not been selectively altered or previewed between emission and detection, we observe statistically significant violation of Bell’s inequality by 9.3 standard deviations, corresponding to an estimated p value of approx. 7.4 × 10^21. This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists (such as Seversky) may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

    In short and in conclusion, as far as the science itself is concerned, Seversky does not have a clue what he is talking about when he falsely claimed that humans arose via the laws of physics (“albeit indirectly”).

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 7

    Seversky is basically claiming that human beings arose via the laws of physics, (“albeit indirectly”)

    Certainly wouldn’t be here without the laws of physics being what they are, would we?

    Yet Darwinian evolution itself is not based on any known law of physics,,

    Again, evolution would not be happening at all if the laws of physics weren’t what they are.

    Nor does it have to be based on a single law.

    Besides, a physical law is really just an observed regularity in the behavior of some aspect of the natural order. We observe living things to reproduce themselves and change bit by bit over time, although the rate might vary. Whether that counts as a law or nor is really just semantics.

    Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

    The Salem Hypothesis almost qualifies as a law.

    In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.

    Which is ironic given that you are desperate to prove that the Universe behaves in accordance with your religious beliefs.

    And what do you think Weinberg means by the “instrumentalist approach”?

    Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists (such as Seversky) may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

    Why don’t you explain to us exactly what you understand this “free will loophole” to be?

    And while you’re at it, perhaps you can explain Darwin’s theory of how species might have evolved implies strict determinism?

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, you were given a reference for exactly what the ‘free will’ loophole entails. Your failure to read and acknowledge the reference is not my problem. It’s yours.

    As to your claim that I believe Darwinism implies strict determinism, I, nor any of my references, implied that Darwinism implies strict determinism. The criticism is that, as Murray Eden put it, “if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    – Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

    More specifically, all other theories of science are based on known physical laws, only Darwinism is based on a randomness postulate, and that randomness postulate, in and of itself, is “highly implausible”,,,
    In fact, the randomness postulate is what, in and of itself, renders Darwinian evolution unscientific.

    Although the word “chance” is usually defined as the mathematical probability of something happening, such as the chance involved in flipping a coin, when Darwinists use the word ‘chance’, they are not appealing to any known probability of something happening but are in fact appealing to an unknown cause which, as Wolfgang Pauli himself pointed out, is more or less synonymous with the word ‘miracle’.

    Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science – Harald Atmanspacher
    Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
    Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28)
    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/234f/4989e039089fed5ac47c7d1a19b656c602e2.pdf

    Likewise, as Talbott points out in the following article, the way in which Darwinists use the word ‘random’ is more or less synonymous with the word ‘miracle’.

    Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011
    Excerpt: The situation calls to mind a widely circulated cartoon by Sidney Harris, which shows two scientists in front of a blackboard on which a body of theory has been traced out with the usual tangle of symbols, arrows, equations, and so on. But there’s a gap in the reasoning at one point, filled by the words, “Then a miracle occurs.” And the one scientist is saying to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.”
    In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”
    This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....randomness

    Thus, whenever you hear a Darwinist say that something happened randomly, or that it happened by chance, he is not appealing to any realistic mathematically defined probability but is in fact appealing to an unknown cause which is more or less synonymous with the world miracle. i.e. The Darwinist, when he uses the word chance, is, in fact, appealing to his ignorance of the actual cause. Which, (postulating an unknown cause as an actual cause), is just about as unscientific as can one possibly get.

    Even Darwin himself admitted that when he appealed to ‘chance’ he was in fact appealing to our ignorance of the known cause.

    “I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations—so common and multiform in organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree in those in a state of nature—had been due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation.”
    Charles Darwin – Origin – Chapter V
    http://darwin-online.org.uk/Va.....-1859.html

    As I’ve stated many times before, Darwinian evolution is not even a real and testable science, but is more realistically classified as a unfalsifiable pseudoscience, even a religion for atheists, rather than ever being classified as a real science.

    Why atheists, such as Seversky, would fight tooth and nail against the, (overwhelmingly obvious), inference to Design, I have no idea. But Seversky’s vehement anti-Theistic beliefs are certainly not based on science.

  10. 10
    ET says:

    So seversky is also an equivocating coward. Earth to seversky- ID is NOT anti-evolution. The laws of physics are incapable of producing coded information processing systems. And living organisms are ruled by them.

    Seversky loses, again. That must be what drives his desperation

  11. 11
    Mac McTavish says:

    ET

    So seversky is also an equivocating coward.

    Grow up.

  12. 12
    ET says:

    Pound sand, mac and cheese, you cowardly quote-mining loser. As I said I will always call out liars, BS artists, which includes cowardly equivocators. If you cannot handle that then you are part of the problem. That, and your ignorance.

  13. 13
    Mac McTavish says:

    ET, this isn’t your site. A mature individual would show some respect for the owner(s) of the site and behave with a degree of civility.

    When I am invited into someone else’s house, I remove my shoes and treat the owners, their other guests and their possessions. A mature person certainly doesn’t call the other guests names because they disagree with them. You would be wise to take this advice.

  14. 14
    ET says:

    Oh my- Mac and cheese supports lying, equivocating and bluffing.

    Respect for the owners would mean no one lies, equivocates or bluffs. People who lie, equivocate and bluff do not have any respect and behave like insipid trolls.

    This isn’t your site, mac and cheese.

  15. 15
    ET says:

    Mac and cheese is an insipid troll:

    A mature person certainly doesn’t call the other guests names because they disagree with them.

    That isn’t what is happening. Clearly you are just a loser punk who needs to grow up and stop lying.

  16. 16
    Truthfreedom says:

    Gotta love how ‘illusory’ people (atheists/materialists/ridicul-ists) take offence.

  17. 17
    Querius says:

    Hmmm. Back on topic . . .

    Engineering involves designing with requirements and constraints. The laws of physics provide some constraints. Some the the latest technologies involve something called “generative design,” in which a computer program takes a brute force approach to applying millions of solutions to a design and filters out all but those that match certain physical and design constraints such as size, stresses, weight, and so on. The result is often organic in appearance (do a search on images of generative design). These techniques can also be applied to city planning, prosthetics, and other disciplines.

    But . . .

    A great design often challenges unstated assumptions and constraints by asking questions.

    “Why does the motor have to be on top?”
    “Can we combine these two functions by . . .?”
    “What would happen if we used this other material instead?”

    Furthermore, good designs are often compromises between several optimized designs. For example, a Leatherman multitool is not very comfortable to hold, but it combines many tools into a very portable package.

    In biology, when organisms become too specialized, they risk extinction should the environment change, and highly adaptable organisms won’t likely be very specialized.

    -Q

  18. 18
    JVL says:

    Mac McTavish:

    There is no point in trying to bring ET to heal. The site owner and the regular contributors agree with him so they let him get away with lots of behaviour you and I would be banned for. It’s a double standard and you just have to learn to live with it or leave. In my experience.

    And even, in the past, when ET has been banned he’s come back under a different pseudonym and started up saying the same things in the same way.

    Uncommon Descent isn’t about having a dialogue, it’s about ‘serving’ the Intelligent Design community which seems to mean agreeing with any and all design advocates and shouting down any dissenters.

  19. 19
    ET says:

    LoL! @ JVL! If I tell lies, equivocate or bluff I expect to be called on it. There cannot be a dialog with people who lie, equivocate and bluff. The anti-ID mob don’t want a dialog. JVL doesn’t want a dialog

  20. 20
    Querius says:

    Why not just ignore the noise and respond to the OP?

    Noise includes unsupported assertions and ad hominem attacks. Noise is the opposite of information.

    -Q

  21. 21
    JVL says:

    Querius: Why not just ignore the noise and respond to the OP?

    Why bother? If the sensible and rational people are buried under a cacophony of shouting.

    Noise includes unsupported assertions and ad hominem attacks. Noise is the opposite of information.

    Who are you referring to?

  22. 22
    ET says:

    And yet all alleged shouting occurs in response to irrational and nonsensical posts.

  23. 23
    JVL says:

    ET: And yet all alleged shouting occurs in response to irrational and nonsensical posts.

    Based on your criteria. There is never any admittance that another point of view might be correct.

  24. 24
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Based on your criteria.

    Based on facts, truth, logic and reasoning. That is my criteria.

    There is never any admittance that another point of view might be correct.

    Not when/if it-this hypothetical other point of view- contradicts the facts, truth, logic and reasoning.

  25. 25
    Truthfreedom says:

    Wow. ‘Illusory’ people get REALLY angry. How strange. And they cry REALLY bitter tears (though I find them sweee-t).

    Well, not really strange, since materialism = lunacy.
    I ‘robotically’ wrote that.
    My bad. 🙂

    Circuses have almost disappeared. But we have materialists to laugh at.
    And that’s good.

    10 Reasons Why Atheists are Delusional
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/11-reasons-why-atheists-are-delusional/

  26. 26
    ET says:

    “Illusory People”- another great name for a band or a Reggae song 😎

  27. 27
    Querius says:

    JVL,

    Why bother? If the sensible and rational people are buried under a cacophony of shouting.

    Since this is written communication, I simply skip over the ones lacking substance. Nobody’s voice gets buried.

    Who are you referring to?

    Posts that primarily contain unsupported assertions and ad hominem attacks. If the shoe doesn’t fit, you don’t have to wear it. But I assume that not all thinking people will agree on everything. That’s why assertions need supporting information. It’s highly likely in science that contrary information is often available, and there are often interesting explanations why.

    Personally, I prefer the design paradigm but for pragmatic reasons. Let me give you a fairly neutral example, the Yonaguni Monument. Take a couple of minutes (2:50 minutes) to watch this video and decide whether it’s a man-made structure or the product of natural processes.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYBJnX9AHOg

    What are the arguments for and against?
    What’s the consensus among scientists?
    Which of the two conclusions is likely to promote additional investigation?

    No, this is not a trap. I’m undecided.

    -Q

  28. 28
  29. 29
    JVL says:

    Querius: Personally, I prefer the design paradigm but for pragmatic reasons. Let me give you a fairly neutral example, the Yonaguni Monument. Take a couple of minutes (2:50 minutes) to watch this video and decide whether it’s a man-made structure or the product of natural processes.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYBJnX9AHOg

    I think it’s natural. The video uses a lot of loaded words (like carved and stairs) that are trying to influence those who might have otherwise been undecided.

    What are the arguments for and against?

    Againts: no signs of the stones being worked, no joints, no signs of wear, no indications of inhabitation whatsoever.

    What’s the consensus among scientists?

    It’s natural. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonaguni_Monument

    Which of the two conclusions is likely to promote additional investigation?

    Depends on the investigator. A geologist would probably love to figure out how it was formed as much as a design advocate. The important thing is to make all investigations public so that experts on any side can see the work and results.

  30. 30
    ET says:

    Too funny- JVL doesn’t understand erosion. And JVL thinks that people live underwater.

  31. 31
    JVL says:

    ET: Too funny- JVL doesn’t understand erosion. And JVL thinks that people live underwater.

    ???? I said I thought it was natural.

  32. 32
    ET says:

    Cars exist in nature and as such are natural.

  33. 33
    Truthfreedom says:

    Beaver constructs a dam = ‘natural’.
    Man designs a car = ‘unnatural’.

    Lol.

    According to naturalist ‘reasoning’, humans are not part of ‘Nature’.

    Pray Darwin.

  34. 34
    JVL says:

    ET: Cars exist in nature and as such are natural.

    I was seriously trying to respond to Querius‘s post. What are you trying to do.

  35. 35
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: Beaver constructs a dam = ‘natural’.
    Man designs a car = ‘unnatural’.

    What? I would consider a beaver dam designed as I would a car. They may both be natural but that’s not really the point is it?

    Humans exist in Nature and are therefore ‘natural’.
    But when a human designs something, that something, misteriously (‘poof’), becomes ‘unnatural’.

    ?????

    Magic anyone?

    Well, I guess you’re more interested in ‘scoring points’ than having a discussion about such things.

    Therefore, the distinction ‘natural’ vs ‘artificial’ is stupid.

    I thought the important difference was designed vs undesigned?

  36. 36
    Truthfreedom says:

    Humans exist in Nature and are therefore ‘natural’.
    But when a human designs something, that something, misteriously (‘poof’), becomes ‘unnatural’.

    Magic anyone?

  37. 37
    Mac McTavish says:

    JVL

    And even, in the past, when ET has been banned he’s come back under a different pseudonym and started up saying the same things in the same way.

    Thanks JVL, I wasn’t aware of ET’s history. I take some comfort from the fact that this site does occasionally act on this type of behavior. After all, continuing to allow this type of immature schoolyard behavior detracts from those who try to have serious discussions.

  38. 38
    Truthfreedom says:

    ‘Nature’ = everything that exists.

    Therefore, the distinction ‘natural’ vs ‘artificial’ is stupid.

    No ‘artificial selection’ then. Sorry Darwin, only theists can logically make sense of that difference.

  39. 39
    JVL says:

    Mac McTavish, the one true Scotsman: Thanks JVL, I wasn’t aware of ET’s history. I take some comfort from the fact that this site does occasionally act on this type of behavior. After all, continuing to allow this type of immature schoolyard behavior detracts from those who try to have serious discussions.

    If I remember correctly he had to get much more abusive to get banned the last time. Might have involved some swearing . . .

  40. 40
    Truthfreedom says:

    ‘Immatureness’ is a ‘social construct’. Wow. Some people are not ‘woke’ yet.

    No one cares about ‘opinions’.

    What is the objective standard for ‘being mature’? Its size? Its weight? Anyone?

  41. 41
    Mac McTavish says:

    TF

    What is the objective standard for ‘being mature’? Its size? Its weight? Anyone?

    With respect to behavior I believe that it is a cultural/societal standard rather than an objective one.

  42. 42
    ET says:

    So both mac and cheese and JVL support lying, equivocating and bluffing. It isn’t as if there was any doubt, though.

    People who lie, equivocate and bluff are immature. So according to mac-cheeseman and JVL, all evolutionists are immature.

    THe truth remains that I get banned for exposing liars, cowardly equivocators and bluffing losers. And I am more than OK with that. Evos get banned for being liars, cowardly equivocators and pathological liars. Again, I am more than OK with that.

  43. 43
    Truthfreedom says:

    But if everything is ‘material’ (has size/ weight), it logically follows that ‘behaviors’ can be measured.

    Unless:
    – materialism is false (everyone knows it)
    – you want to go the ’emergentist’ route (which equals ‘magic’/ non-sense)
    – you want to go the ‘eliminativist’ route (behaviors ‘does not exist’. More non-sense.)

    Anyway, materialists lose.

  44. 44
    JVL says:

    ET: So both mac and cheese and JVL support lying, equivocating and bluffing. It isn’t as if there was any doubt, though.

    ??? I know the current style here is to let you run rampant on the threads but you really should try harder to focus.

    People who lie, equivocate and bluff are immature. So according to mac-cheeseman and JVL, all evolutionists are immature.

    Please try harder to make sense.

    THe truth remains that I get banned for exposing liars, cowardly equivocators and bluffing losers. And I am more than OK with that. Evos get banned for being liars, cowardly equivocators and pathological liars. Again, I am more than OK with that.

    You got banned for being very, very abusive. You stopped even trying to carry on a civilised conversation. Your anger got the better of you.

  45. 45
    ET says:

    LoL! @ JVL- What I said are the facts. YOU are one of the liars, equivocators and bluffers.

    The truth remains that I get banned for exposing liars, cowardly equivocators and bluffing losers. And I am more than OK with that. Evos get banned for being liars, cowardly equivocators and pathological liars. Again, I am more than OK with that.

    Figures JVL would have an issue with the truth

  46. 46
    Truthfreedom says:

    Lol. A ‘materialist’ complaining about ‘unfairness’.

    Is ‘unfairness’ objective? Does it have size? Does it have weight?

    Because, if it does not have any of them, it ‘does not exist’/ it is an ‘illusion’. (I know, that sounds retarded. But materialism is the tomb where logic gets buried).

    I, of course, AM NOT a materialist.

  47. 47
    ET says:

    You have to be daft to think there can be a civilized conversation with people who lie, equivocate and bluff. You have to be daft to think that calling out the liars, equivocators and bluffers means that you are immature for doing so. Enter the daft twins, JVL and Mac & cheese

  48. 48
    JVL says:

    ET: You have to be daft to think there can be a civilized conversation with people who lie, equivocate and bluff. You have to be daft to think that calling out the liars, equivocators and bluffers means that you are immature for doing so. Enter the daft twins, JVL and Mac & cheese

    Take it up with the people who banned you from UD. How many times has it been? Twice? Three times? You’re a serial offender.

    The truth remains that I get banned for exposing liars, cowardly equivocators and bluffing losers. And I am more than OK with that. Evos get banned for being liars, cowardly equivocators and pathological liars. Again, I am more than OK with that.

    What a weird site: you get banned for lying and you get banned for exposing lies. Very strange.

  49. 49
    Truthfreedom says:

    @47 ET
    ‘Civilization’ is dead.

    ‘Woke-tards’ have raped, killed, desecrated and dismembered it.

    Alhamdulillah (Darwin is great). 72 ‘genres’ await you in ‘heaven’.

  50. 50
    ET says:

    Wow. You are the serial offender, JVL. You lie, equivocate and bluff. That is the truth of you. And yes, I have exposed many liars, equivocators and bluffers. I am proud of that. And I am sure you are proud of your lying, equivocating and bluffing.

    You have to be daft to think there can be a civilized conversation with people who lie, equivocate and bluff. You have to be daft to think that calling out the liars, equivocators and bluffers means that you are immature for doing so. Enter the daft twins, JVL and Mac & cheese

    JVL can’t even respond to that. That is very telling

  51. 51
    JVL says:

    ET: Wow. You are the serial offender, JVL. You lie, equivocate and bluff. That is the truth of you. And yes, I have exposed many liars, equivocators and bluffers. I am proud of that. And I am sure you are proud of your lying, equivocating and bluffing.

    But, you got banned for being abusive. That is the truth.

    You have to be daft to think there can be a civilized conversation with people who lie, equivocate and bluff. You have to be daft to think that calling out the liars, equivocators and bluffers means that you are immature for doing so. Enter the daft twins, JVL and Mac & cheese

    It’s not my fault you got banned for being abusive. That’s down to you.

    JVL can’t even respond to that. That is very telling

    I don’t see much that I seriously need to consider responding to. In fact, I find your ranting quite amusing. I hope you don’t damage your keyboard.

  52. 52
    Truthfreedom says:

    Lol. As if ‘getting banned’ were something objectively ‘bad’.

    Lolololol!

    ‘Only atoms and the void exist’ (and the mental weakness of ‘materialism’, of course).

  53. 53
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom:

    I am ignoring you for a reason. You sound like you are stoned or drunk; clearly not really at your best.

  54. 54
    ET says:

    LoL! @ JVL:

    But, you got banned for being abusive.

    Being abusive to abusive losers. Get your facts straight or shut up.

    JVL thinks that lying, equivocating and bluffing are all OK. That is a definition of a loser.

  55. 55
    Truthfreedom says:

    JVL, you are retarded. Sorry, but you ARE.

    You can not ‘ignore’ someone while you talk to that person.

    What is objectively wrong with ‘drunkenness’? Who set that standard? And why?

  56. 56
    JVL says:

    ET: Being abusive to abusive losers. Get your facts straight or shut up.

    Like I said: being abusive. And, please explain, why did that get you banned?

    JVL thinks that lying, equivocating and bluffing are all OK. That is a definition of a loser.

    You really are flailing about a lot today. Are you feeling okay? You haven’t caught COVID-19 have you?

  57. 57
    Truthfreedom says:

    What if I ‘perceive’ me as ‘not drunk’?
    Who are you to ‘judge’?
    Are you a ‘bigot’?

  58. 58
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: JVL, you are retarded. Sorry, but you ARE.

    I’ll tell my physician and my family.

    You can not ‘ignore’ someone while you talk to that person.

    I did ignore a lot of your weird posts.

    What is objectively wrong with ‘drunkenness’? Who set that standard? And why?

    I didn’t say there was anything ‘wrong’ with it. But it can make you incoherent.

    What if I ‘perceive’ me as ‘not drunk’?
    Who are you to ‘judge’?
    Are you a ‘bigot’?

    I just think you’re not really at the top of your game. I think you are embarrassing yourself. It’s your call.

  59. 59
    Truthfreedom says:

    JVL
    Are you a drunkard-‘phobe’?

  60. 60
    Truthfreedom says:

    As long as I am ‘happy’… Who cares?
    Who are you to ‘judge’?

  61. 61
    Truthfreedom says:

    What is ‘wrong’ with being ’embarrassed’?

  62. 62
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: Are you a drunkard-‘phobe’?

    Not at all. I just don’t really want you to embarrass yourself.

    As long as I am ‘happy’… Who cares?
    Who are you to ‘judge’?

    Don’t worry, be happy. But consider stopping embarrassing yourself.

    What is ‘wrong’ with being ’embarrassed’?

    It’s your call. You’re a grown up.

  63. 63
    Truthfreedom says:

    #Safespace.

    Drunkard Lives Matter.

  64. 64
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: Drunkard Lives Matter.

    Go lie down, watch a movie.

  65. 65
    Truthfreedom says:

    Lololol.

    Your retarded opinion means nothing.

    What is wrong with ’embarrassment’? Why should it be ‘avoided’?

    If I thought I were another ‘gender’, you would lick my a**.

    JVL the hypocrite. The coward SJW.

  66. 66
    Truthfreedom says:

    Is ‘lying down’ ‘objective’?

  67. 67
    Truthfreedom says:

    DLM
    Drunkard
    Lives
    Matter

    JVL the coward SJW is a ‘drunkard-phobe’.

  68. 68
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: Your retarded opinion means nothing.

    Then why are you responding?

    What is wron with ’embarrassment’? Why should it be ‘avoided’?

    Your life, your call.

    If I thought I were another ‘gender’, you would lick my a**.

    You should really stop now.

    JVL the hypocrite. The coward SJW.

    Time for you to call it a day. Or night. Or whatever.

    Is ‘lying down’ ‘objective’?

    You really should stop now.

    DLM
    Drunkard
    Lives
    Matter

    JVL the coward SJW is a ‘drunkard-phobe’.

    You know what? I’ve got much better and more important things to do than to give you more cause to embarrass yourself online. Keep ranting by all means if you wish but I shan’t be responding again for quite a while.

  69. 69
    Truthfreedom says:

    Why ‘should’ I stop?
    Because JVL the retard says so?
    Makes 0 sense.
    JVL = hypocrite SJW.

    You have ‘ignored’ me 20 posts in a row.

    You are OBJECTIVELY retarded.

  70. 70
    Truthfreedom says:

    I want JVL ‘cancelled’.

    DLM
    Drunkard
    Lives
    Matter!

  71. 71
    ET says:

    Being abusive to abusive losers. Get your facts straight or shut up.

    JVL does neither.

    JVL thinks that lying, equivocating and bluffing are all OK. That is a definition of a loser.

    JVL chokes

  72. 72
    Truthfreedom says:

    2+2=677 according to JVL. (Who is an ‘statiscian’).

    The Red Guard = retarded.

  73. 73
  74. 74
    ET says:

    Seeing that JVL is reluctant to answer, I will help him out:

    You cannot have a civilized discussion with people, namely evolutionists in this context, who lie, equivocate and bluff.

  75. 75
    Truthfreedom says:

    Drunkard-‘phobia’ kills.

    Drunkenness is ‘a way of life’. It should be taught in schools.

  76. 76
    Querius says:

    JVL,

    Monty Hall filmed a more extensive version that also included a geologist. Some of his teams believed it was due to natural forces without human involvement while other’s (including Monty Hall) hoped it was man-made.

    A more extensive, 45 minute version is located here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UbSQOIpkzI

    The site was once above water and accessible to humans, but what the team couldn’t determine was whether the geological forms had been modified by humans.

    What would you look for? Tooling marks, cultural traditions, the absence of other other sites with identical geological forms, right angles and specific angles not due to cleavage planes, orientations, and utility including stairs, platforms and landings, gates, amphitheaters, defensive works, megalithic structures, patterns and regularities, rock carvings, and context with obviously human crafting such as pottery and arrowheads.

    The Japanese geologist associated with the site (not with Monty Halls’ team) valued two evidences of human activity: one was a stone artifact recovered from the site with a plus shape obviously carved into it (personally, I think it was a primitive boat anchor due to it having holes carved into each end), and a stylized human face that may have been carved into one of the structures–with a pupil in each eye.

    The real question is whether humans reworked the stone for their purposes. This is still not clear in my opinion.

    The conjecture that this site had evidence of intelligent design obviously provoked much more study than if it were immediately dismissed as a geological feature. This example parallels the additional study into “junk” DNA provoked by the intelligent design paradigm, except that the amount of information represented in DNA is the most densely packed information in the universe.

    Another anomaly has been found in the middle of the Baltic Sea. While it’s also been both routinely hyped as a UFO and routinely dismissed as a natural geological formation, there is certainly more to discover for anyone with scientific curiosity. An hour-long documentary on the scientific investigation and the new formations discovered is available here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZSCkBzjZSI

    My point is that both wild speculation and routine dismissal is not helpful in authentic science.

    -Q

  77. 77
    Truthfreedom says:

    JVL would look for ‘transgender’ bathrooms.
    A sign of ‘civilization’.

    Beware: JVL is a drunkard-‘phobe’. He harasses, mocks and ridicules drunkards on the Internet. He wants drunkards to suffer and die.

    He is a bully that should be locked up.

    #Do not stand for bullies.

    UD: cancel JVL.

  78. 78
    Truthfreedom says:

    I’m gonna marry my Johnnie Walker.

  79. 79
    JVL says:

    Querius: A more extensive, 45 minute version is located here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UbSQOIpkzI

    Yes, I watched the whole thing. The geologist was very sure and I believe him.

    What would you look for? Tooling marks, cultural traditions, the absence of other other sites with identical geological forms, right angles and specific angles not due to cleavage planes, orientations, and utility including stairs, platforms and landings, gates, amphitheaters, defensive works, megalithic structures, patterns and regularities, rock carvings, and context with obviously human crafting such as pottery and arrowheads.

    I didn’t see any tooling marks or any of those other things. It’s not man made.

    The Japanese geologist associated with the site (not with Monty Halls’ team) valued two evidences of human activity: one was a stone artifact recovered from the site with a plus shape obviously carved into it (personally, I think it was a primitive boat anchor due to it having holes carved into each end), and a stylized human face that may have been carved into one of the structures–with a pupil in each eye.

    If it was an anchor, a very primitive one, it could have fallen off a ship. The face is not convincing.

    The conjecture that this site had evidence of intelligent design obviously provoked much more study than if it were immediately dismissed as a geological feature. This example parallels the additional study into “junk” DNA provoked by the intelligent design paradigm, except that the amount of information represented in DNA is the most densely packed information in the universe.

    Much more study? That video?

    My point is that both wild speculation and routine dismissal is not helpful in authentic science.

    That site is not even a good candidate for design.

  80. 80
    Truthfreedom says:

    #Cancel JVL.
    Drunkard-‘phobia’ = hate crime.

  81. 81
    ET says:

    JVL never went to the site. JVL doesn’t know if there are tool marks or not.

  82. 82
    Truthfreedom says:

    JVL owes me an apology. Hate speech against drunkards should not be tolerated.

    Drunkard-‘phobia’ kills.
    Apologize or get banned.

  83. 83
    JVL says:

    ET: JVL never went to the site. JVL doesn’t know if there are tool marks or not.

    Show me evidence of tool marks then.

  84. 84
    Truthfreedom says:

    JVL insulted and mocked me for being born a drunkard.

    Hate speech should not be tolerated. Drunkard-‘phobia’ = hate.

    I want JVL banned.

  85. 85
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: JVL insulted and mocked me for being born a drunkard.

    Hate speech should not be tolerated. Drunkard-‘phobia’ = hate.

    I want JVL banned.

    Someone left the playpen unattended.

  86. 86
    Truthfreedom says:

    JVL is a disgusting drunkard-‘phobe’. A nasty un-evolved bigot.
    He mocks and derides drunkards. We are born this way and suffer a lot.
    Who are you to ‘judge’ us?

    Hate speech against drunkards should not be allowed.

    DLM:
    Drunkard
    Lives
    Matter!

    #Cancel JVL.

  87. 87
    Querius says:

    JVL,

    As you saw in the video, any tooling marks were obviously obliterated by the extremely poor condition of the flat surfaces and the team geologist could not rule out human modifications.

    But, thank you! You’re actually helping me make my point! I deliberately chose the Yonaguni Monument precisely because it’s somewhat likely to be a natural geological formation with some pretty puzzling features. Again, I’m still not decided on whether humans modified the sandstone to give it 90 degree edges, straight lines, and consistent angular directions.

    However, I was able to make my point because, as I’d anticipated, you immediately passed judgment and uncritically sided with the current consensus. Simply being doctrinaire is not how science is supposed to work. In addition, you’re still unable to find any issues with simply dismissing the formation as natural without considering any contrary evidence.

    If you have time to watch the documentary on the Baltic Anomaly (58 minutes) that I linked to, you can see the same dynamics at work. While it’s again likely to be a geological formation, the Baltic Anomaly is admittedly out of place and the scientists investigating it actually found an additional anomaly near it that could lead to new insights.

    Unfortunately, the sensationalist press prefers to publish it either as an “alien craft” or as a (yawn) completely debunked and boring geological formation. Neither of these extremes are scientific.

    -Q

  88. 88
    Truthfreedom says:

    JVL suggests that being a drunkard is ’embarrassing’. What a disgusting human being. So full of hate and contempt.

    @ Drunkard Pride.
    #Cancel JVL.

  89. 89
    JVL says:

    Querius: As you saw in the video, any tooling marks were obviously obliterated by the extremely poor condition of the flat surfaces and the team geologist could not rule out human modifications.

    Or, they might not ever have been there.

    But, thank you! You’re actually helping me make my point! I deliberately chose the Yonaguni Monument precisely because it’s somewhat likely to be a natural geological formation with some pretty puzzling features. Again, I’m still not decided on whether humans modified the sandstone to give it 90 degree edges, straight lines, and consistent angular directions.

    Perhaps. But why?

    However, I was able to make my point because, as I’d anticipated, you immediately passed judgment and uncritically sided with the current consensus. Simply being doctrinaire is not how science is supposed to work. In addition, you’re still unable to find any issues with simply dismissing the formation as natural without considering any contrary evidence.

    Hang on. Aside from the fact that there really is no evidence the site was even modified by humans without very clear evidence of design the assumption should be undesigned. Now if you can provide very clear and unambiguous evidence of design at that site then I will reconsider my opinion.

    If you have time to watch the documentary on the Baltic Anomaly (58 minutes) that I linked to, you can see the same dynamics at work. While it’s again likely to be a geological formation, the Baltic Anomaly is admittedly out of place and the scientists investigating it actually found an additional anomaly near it that could lead to new insights.

    I’ll think about it. So far you’ve just spent a lot of my time on a site that is almost certainly undesigned.

    Unfortunately, the sensationalist press prefers to publish it either as an “alien craft” or as a (yawn) completely debunked and boring geological formation. Neither of these extremes are scientific.

    It depends on the evidence. I don’t think geography is boring at all.

  90. 90
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: JVL suggests that being a drunkard is ’embarrassing’. What a disgusting human being. So full of hate and contempt.

    @ Drunkard Pride.
    #Cancel JVL.

    You need help.

  91. 91
    Truthfreedom says:

    UD moderators, I am a victim of hate speech.
    Please ban JVL. He hates, mocks and derides drunkards. He is a 19th century ape that practices drunkard-‘phobia’.

  92. 92
    Truthfreedom says:

    Lol. I ‘need’ help. Says who?

    Do you hate drunkards, JVL? Would you like for drunkards to be imprisoned? Or stoned to death? Or would you like to ban us marrying our Johnny Walkers?

    How des-pi-ca-ble.

  93. 93
    Mac McTavish says:

    Querius, when you kept referring to Monty Hall I could only think of “Let’s Make a Deal”, and initially ignored it. My apologies.

    It was a very entertaining video but I didn’t see any compelling evidence or argument for it being man made or man modified. I think the geologist made the most relevant point when he showed them nearby natural rock formations on land that resembled the “monument”.

    But, still, very thought provoking.

  94. 94
    Mac McTavish says:

    JVL

    You need help.

    Your mastery of the understatement is impressive.

  95. 95
    Truthfreedom says:

    Drunkard-‘phobes’ NEED help.
    You love bullying drunkards on the Internet.
    You are moral monsters.

    #Cancel JVL.

  96. 96
    Truthfreedom says:

    Butt-loving has to be celebrated.
    Alcohol-loving has to be ridiculed.

    JVL the hypocrite SJW.
    You owe me an apology.

  97. 97
    ET says:

    If anything the Yonaguni Monument was a quarry site.

  98. 98
    Truthfreedom says:

    #Safespace.
    #Cancel JVL.

  99. 99
    Querius says:

    JVL,

    Querius: As you saw in the video, any tooling marks were obviously obliterated by the extremely poor condition of the flat surfaces and the team geologist could not rule out human modifications.
    Or, they might not ever have been there.

    Yes, exactly.

    But, thank you! You’re actually helping me make my point! I deliberately chose the Yonaguni Monument precisely because it’s somewhat likely to be a natural geological formation with some pretty puzzling features. Again, I’m still not decided on whether humans modified the sandstone to give it 90 degree edges, straight lines, and consistent angular directions.
    Perhaps. But why?

    I don’t understand your comment. Perhaps what? “But why?” what?

    Hang on. Aside from the fact that there really is no evidence the site was even modified by humans without very clear evidence of design the assumption should be undesigned. Now if you can provide very clear and unambiguous evidence of design at that site then I will reconsider my opinion.

    There’s no compelling evidence either that humans modified the site or that the site is completely unmodified geology. The presence of 90-degree edges, straight lines, flat surfaces, and angled faces are rarely or never observed in geological sandstone formations and quite reasonably attract interest for that reason.

    Unfortunately, the sensationalist press prefers to publish it either as an “alien craft” or as a (yawn) completely debunked and boring geological formation. Neither of these extremes are scientific.
    It depends on the evidence. I don’t think geography is boring at all.

    That’s not what I meant when I mentioned geology (i.e. not geography). I meant that sensationalist media find geology generally boring and rarely publish developments in geology unless they can promote something sensational about it.

    Research into this very unusual geological formation is stimulated by the presumption of human design while the presumption of ordinary random processes tends to suppress research.

    -Q

  100. 100
    Truthfreedom says:

    JVL is a bully.
    He owes me and the drunkard-community an apology.
    He is a moralizing preacher and he shows no respect for people’s identities.

    #JVL: apologize or get banned.

  101. 101
    JVL says:

    ET: If anything the Yonaguni Monument was a quarry site.

    That is certainly a possibility. I would still expect to see signs of the stone being worked and cut and some indication of how the cutting was done. I didn’t see any evidence of any of that sort of thing which doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I just didn’t see it.

    Querius:

    My question of why means: why would humans cut an existing stone outcropping in that way? What would the purpose be? And if they did cut it I would expect to see some signs of that work as mentioned above.

    The other consideration of the site being a quarry is: where did the quarried bits go? Are there structures in the area that are made up of that kind of sandstone? No one seems to have thought about that. If it wasn’t a quarry then I would expect to see some broken bits in the area that have sheered off the main outcropping.

    What other information do we have about the cultures that have inhabited that island? What kind of other structures did they construct?

    If you look at other constructed sites (like Machu Picchu) it’s possible to see where stones were cut to fit them together. There are even some good guesses as to how the cutting was accomplished. The site we’re discussing has nothing like that.

    I would say that, in fact, one guy thinking it was man-made has NOT brought about a huge amount of research. It’s interested a few anomaly hunters and some geologists who pretty quickly decided it was not man-made. Interesting but nothing even that noteworthy as the geologist pointed out in the video.

  102. 102
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: Butt-loving has to be celebrated.
    Alcohol-loving has to be ridiculed.

    JVL the hypocrite SJW.
    You owe me an apology.

    You owe the other participants in this thread an apology for strewing the discussion with pointless and derogatory drivel. And you owe the owners of this forum an apology for bringing ridicule upon Uncommon Descent.

    Obviously you don’t care about other people. And, sadly, the moderators of this thread and this site are happy to let you make a mockery of them. I happen to think that ID deserves a place for people to discuss all aspects of the endeavour in a collegiate and serious manner. You’re just making it look like a seedy bar just before closing. And no one is stopping you. Lovely.

  103. 103
    Truthfreedom says:

    UD moderators/ owners know that you, moral subjectivists-relativists, are the BIGGEST HYPOCRITES on Earth.

    They do not cave in to the PC fascist brigade. They are mocked day in and day out for not believing the most grievous leftist non-sense.

    JVL: why do you hate people born with drunkard tendencies and that act on them?
    Why do you condemn drunkenness?
    Who gave you that authority?

  104. 104
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: UD moderators/ owners know that you, moral subjectivists-relativists, are the BIGGEST HYPOCRITES on Earth.

    Who says I am? Are you just making an assumption do you suppose?

    They do not cave in to the PC fascist brigade. They are mocked day in and day out for not believing the most grievous leftist non-sense.

    Not by me personally. Perhaps you should treat people like individuals instead of labels for which you make assumptions.

    JVL: why do you hate people born with drunkard tendencies and that act on them?
    Why do you condemn drunkenness?
    Who gave you that authority?

    I don’t hate people in general; it takes a lot of effort to hate so I try and keep it to a minimum and only people I know. I do not hate or condemn drunkards but I feel sorry for them when they make fools of themselves as you were doing.

    Just like you, the only authority I have is what is given to me by others and the constitution/laws where I live.

  105. 105
    Truthfreedom says:

    JVL, drunkards lives matter. We are born this way, and since we are physico-chemical machines, we end logically drinking etanol. Because we are programmed to do it. And we can not escape our fate.

    You know:
    – plants make photosynthesis
    – fishes swim
    – drunkards drink

    It is astonishing to hear you say I was ‘making a fool of myself’. Do fishes make ‘fools of themselves’ when they swim?

  106. 106
    Truthfreedom says:

    Just like you, the only authority I have is what is given to me by others and the constitution/laws where I live.

    No. I believe everything has been created by God. He is the ultimate source of authority.

    Not a bunch of physico-chemical processes.

    Your ‘reasoning’ was used by Nazi and Khmer Rouge supporters. ‘What is given to me by others’ + the laws.

  107. 107
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: JVL, drunkards lives matter. We are born this way, and since we are physico-chemical machines, we end logically drinking etanol. Because we are programmed to do it. And we can not escape our fate.

    Maybe so.

    It is astonishing to hear you say I was ‘making a fool of myself’. Do fishes make ‘fools of themselves’ when they swim?

    I’m sure some do.

    I’ve been trying to figure out what you’ve been trying to get at and I think I’ve got it sussed:

    If I agree that alcoholics are just born that way, like homosexuals say, then because I think there’s nothing wrong with being homosexual then I have to admit that there’s nothing wrong with alcoholism (excepting, of course, the damage it can do to others). AND then if I say something like: you just need to show some backbone, resist the temptations, wean yourself off, get some help then I HAVE to admit I believe in free will which makes me, in your eyes based on your guesses as to my beliefs, a first-class hypocrite.

    Something like that? Does that often work? Do you enjoy trying to make fools of other people? Do you score some points when you catch a materialist hypocrite in a contradiction?

    I’m not like you. I don’t trawl around trying to find someone I disagree with I think I can catch out and then revel that I’ve got another one lying. I don’t treat people that way.

    No. I believe everything has been created by God. He is the ultimate source of authority.

    Okay.

    Not a bunch of physico-chemical processes.

    Maybe someday we’ll find out who is right.

    Your ‘reasoning’ was used by Nazi and Khmer Rouge supporters. ‘What is given to me by others’ + the laws.

    Ehhhhh, not really. And didn’t Jesus reply to Pilate: that’s what you say . . . meaning, it’s you that’s granting me that importance, not me.

  108. 108
    Truthfreedom says:

    @JVL
    -Saying ‘Ehh, not really’ does not an argument make.
    – How can ‘physico-chemical robots’ programmed by evolution ‘find out (someday) who is right’?
    – If you are not a moral relativist, what are you then?

    Do you enjoy trying to make fools of other people?

    I enjoy telling people brainwashed by crazy atheists that materialism is an incoherent metaphysical position. A lot. I am programmed to that end. And to being a drunkard.
    -Are you sure fishes ‘make fools of themselves’?. I mean. Seriously. Please elaborate.

  109. 109
    ET says:

    JVL- You have never been to the site and examine it. And the site is underwater.

  110. 110
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: If you are not a moral relativist, what are you then?

    I’m a drunkard.

    Are you sure fishes ‘make fools of themselves’?. I mean. Seriously. Please elaborate.

    I’ll ask one next time I see one.

  111. 111
    JVL says:

    ET: You have never been to the site and examine it. And the site is underwater.

    Nope, I haven’t been there and I haven’t seen evidence of tool marks or the stones being worked so I shall continue to assume the configuration is natural (as did the geologist in the film) until I get evidence to suggest otherwise. Good evidence.

    People do do underwater archaeology. It’s quite a ‘thing’ now.

  112. 112
    ET says:

    Umm, being underwater for thousands of years means the water could have easily erased all tool marks. Do you understand anything?

  113. 113
    JVL says:

    ET: Umm, being underwater for thousands of years means the water could have easily erased all tool marks. Do you understand anything?

    Could have. But then why are the edges still so sharp? A specialist would know more. The site really needs a good survey and investigation done to see if there are any signs of work, tool marks, etc.

  114. 114
    ET says:

    Given what we know of what salt water and ocean currents do, if there were any tool marks from cutting, they would have been rubbed clean by now.

  115. 115
    JVL says:

    ET: Given what we know of what salt water and ocean currents do, if there were any tool marks from cutting, they would have been rubbed clean by now.

    But those same forces should have eroded the whole thing a lot then.

    It needs a very good survey and some specialists. Until then . . . I’d have to consider it being man-made as a remote possibility. But, new data could change things obviously. It doesn’t sound like anyone is terribly interested in studying the thing properly. Oh well.

  116. 116
    Truthfreedom says:

    JVL has ran out of arguments. Again.
    Materialism 0
    Theism 1

    JVL, do you believe in teaching children that being a drunkard is ‘another way of life’? That it is ‘natural’? That it is something ‘desirable’?

  117. 117
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: JVL, do you believe in teaching children that being a drunkard is ‘another way of life’? That it is ‘natural’? That it is something ‘desirable’?

    When were you taught and by whom? Was it your parents?

  118. 118
    Truthfreedom says:

    JVL, what a pathetic attempt at dodging my questions.

    But do not worry, after 2-3 rounds of cultural marxist brainwashing, you will end up parroting the: ‘being a drunkard is something fantastic to be proud of’ meme.

    Because thinking for yourself is hard. And the PC noose is too tight.

  119. 119
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: JVL, what a pathetic attempt at dodging my questions.

    I do apologise, I am multi-tasking at the moment. Normally I’m much better at avoiding queries.

    But do not worry, after 2-3 rounds of cultural marxist brainwashing, you will end up parroting the: ‘being a drunkard is something fantastic to be proud of’ meme.

    Hooray! Do I get a badge or anything? A free bottle of MD 20/20?

    Because thinking for yourself is hard. And the PC noose is too tight.

    I don’t have a PC, I use a Mac.

  120. 120
    Truthfreedom says:

    Drunkard
    Lives
    Matter

    #Drunkard Pride Parade

    The sober-archy oppresses drunkards.

  121. 121
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: Drunkard
    Lives
    Matter

    #Drunkard Pride Parade

    The sober-archy oppresses drunkards.

    Solid bro. You da man!

  122. 122
    Truthfreedom says:

    “You da man”!

    How do you dare, JVL? Why on Earth are you assuming my ‘gender’? I was right, you are a bully and a moral monster.

    #Cancel JVL. Hope you enjoy the gulag.

  123. 123
    ET says:

    JVL:

    But those same forces should have eroded the whole thing a lot then.

    That doesn’t follow but seeing that we don’t know what it looked like when it wasn’t submerged we have no idea how much has been smoothed away

  124. 124
    Querius says:

    JVL @101,

    Good points. Regarding the tool marks, when you look at the YouTube videos, you can easily see that the surfaces are heavily eroded, perhaps by the strong current there, and any tool marks would have been completely erased.

    I do like the idea that it could once have been the result of quarrying since the sandstone bedding planes are flat and convenient. There are some above water sandstone formations that might also have been quarried. The island is tiny (29 sq km) with only a small population, so it’s likely that if quarrying took place, any sandstone blocks were removed from the island, which does seem to be the case.

    If you search on Yonaguni images, there do seem to be some that look like they were being quarried including straight, deep lines cut into huge blocks at a 90 degree angle from the bedding planes. The triangular shapes and holes are also suspicious, but see for yourself.

    -Q

  125. 125
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom: How do you dare, JVL? Why on Earth are you assuming my ‘gender’? I was right, you are a bully and a moral monster.

    Oh, sorry. Just to be safe I’ll assume you are a hermaphrodite. That way I can either be completely safe or completely offensive.

    #Cancel JVL. Hope you enjoy the gulag.

    I’ve heard you can meet some really good Russian authors there.

  126. 126
    JVL says:

    ET: That doesn’t follow but seeing that we don’t know what it looked like when it wasn’t submerged we have no idea how much has been smoothed away

    Edges get worn down, more fragile veins in the rocks get worn away, bits splinter and fall off. People who study such things know how it goes. That’s why I’ll withhold final judgement until some experts have a good look.

  127. 127
    JVL says:

    Querius: Good points. Regarding the tool marks, when you look at the YouTube videos, you can easily see that the surfaces are heavily eroded, perhaps by the strong current there, and any tool marks would have been completely erased.

    But then why wouldn’t the surfaces and sharp edges have been eroded as well?

    I do like the idea that it could once have been the result of quarrying since the sandstone bedding planes are flat and convenient. There are some above water sandstone formations that might also have been quarried. The island is tiny (29 sq km) with only a small population, so it’s likely that if quarrying took place, any sandstone blocks were removed from the island, which does seem to be the case.

    Where did they go then? Who took them and used them? Where? What did they build?

    If you search on Yonaguni images, there do seem to be some that look like they were being quarried including straight, deep lines cut into huge blocks at a 90 degree angle from the bedding planes. The triangular shapes and holes are also suspicious, but see for yourself.

    What do other, known quarries look like? Have you done a comparison?

    Look, the geologist in the video was really sure the configuration was natural. Without strong, clear evidence to the contrary I’m happy to stick with that. If and when such evidence comes in I shall reconsider.

  128. 128
    Querius says:

    JVL,

    But then why wouldn’t the surfaces and sharp edges have been eroded as well?

    If you look at the photos, they are.

    Where did they go then? Who took them and used them? Where? What did they build?

    Stone was apparently removed from the formation because the stone debris around the base of the formation is small by comparison. Finding where the stone was transported to and that it necessarily came from the Yonaguni formation requires a whole new investigation. Determining who actually took the stone and when would be another challenge. Also note that many ancient stone quarries were located near bodies of water for easier transportation, which is also the case here before the sea level changed.

    What do other, known quarries look like? Have you done a comparison?

    Yes, there are other ancient quarries with steps and platforms. If you look for yourself, you will find some of these. You’ll also find that ancient people developed different techniques for stone quarrying that varied with the type of stone they quarried.

    Look, the geologist in the video was really sure the configuration was natural.

    The geologist also said that he was uncertain whether the stone was reworked by humans.

    Without strong, clear evidence to the contrary I’m happy to stick with that. If and when such evidence comes in I shall reconsider.

    And you’ve just made my point again. A scientific mindset for advancing knowledge requires curiosity, creative hypotheses, and further investigation. In contrast, non-scientists are happy to stick with the status quo explanations unless an authority tells them to believe otherwise.

    -Q

Leave a Reply