Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Dilemma of Joe the Archaeologist

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Joe is an archaeologist at a major university. Not long ago, he came across evidence which was strong enough to convince him that there lies somewhere in the Andes a fabulous ancient city which has since been lost and forgotten. Confident that he knew the location of the city, Joe was able to acquire a grant to fund an excavation and traveled to a village not far from where he had planned to dig. However, after lengthy conversation with the villagers, Joe discovers that the lost city is most likely not where he had originally planned to dig and could very well be at either of two other locations–both of them far less easily accessible than the original site.

Joe decides to send scouting teams to each of the sites to investigate and search for any signs of past civilization. After conducting thorough investigations, the teams were only able to find one anomaly each (labeled as site A and site B).

site A

site B

Joe only has enough funds and resources to dig at one of these sites. At which (if either) of these sites should he dig and why?

Comments
psssst... off topic, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi killed as 6:15pm 6/7/06 http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Lists/Press%20Releases/DispForm.aspx?ID=3182&Source=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecentcom%2Emil%2Fsites%2Fuscentcom1%2FLists%2FPress%2520Releases%2FCurrent%2520Releases%2Easpx he was obviously a random mutation scheduled for extinction.Michaels7
June 8, 2006
June
06
Jun
8
08
2006
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT
Before coming to a decision either way, I feel it's very important that we first discuss who designed the designer.Krauze
June 8, 2006
June
06
Jun
8
08
2006
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT
I have done a careful analysis of the two images by applying Shannon's equation. The result is clear, these two sites are nearly equal, however, Shannon does indicate slightly more information in the first picture (I think it's a little craggier.) Let's go with site #1.bFast
June 7, 2006
June
06
Jun
7
07
2006
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT
Well Gil, didn't you know that since we know God doesn't exist and is just a fairy tale derived from the evolution of human brain cells that therefore intelligent design cannot be true no matter how impossible to prove evolution is? It's simple logic. You have: no god=intelligent design is impossible. That's science and whomever doesn't agree is anti science. Umkay? So it doesn't matter if OUR ability to prove evolution is not very well documented, we have no choice but to believe it otherwise what else is there? Now go out and insist that everyone who doesn't blindly accept evolution as de facto TRUTH is a fundamentalist who wants to make the world over into a religious totalitarian state...if you do that then the academic world will open their arms to you for a teaching or research position at the most prestigious universities in the world. So don't be anti-science umkay? Be pro evolution and anti God...or else....doors will close.mentok
June 7, 2006
June
06
Jun
7
07
2006
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT
Re: Casting Pearls Before Swine I wouldn't feel too badly about this incident. I notice that the PT article failed to cite their source.Mung
June 7, 2006
June
06
Jun
7
07
2006
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
In most cases, a design inference is not difficult. In fact, when it comes to what we now know about the fine-tuning of the universe and the nature of living systems, one must make a Herculean intellectual and philosophical effort to explain design away.GilDodgen
June 7, 2006
June
06
Jun
7
07
2006
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
The second. But our research does not support the intelligent design movement.Mung
June 7, 2006
June
06
Jun
7
07
2006
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT
Second. The first one could conceivably be the product of erosion. The second one, no way. Explanatory filter.geoffrobinson
June 7, 2006
June
06
Jun
7
07
2006
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply