GENIUS FORUMS

There are entire organizations that make crop circles professionally. There is no reasonable basis for believing anything other than humans make crop circles.

Right...and human DNA is an accident, and so is the universe...

And software writes itself.

Nick Treklis wrote:There are entire organizations that make crop circles professionally. There is no reasonable basis for believing anything other than humans make crop circles.

Dumb remark of the month!

Nick, you're just shooting from the hip. You're throwing logic to the wind. "Entire organizations" making circles professionally does not in any way lead to the conclusion that all circles are human made. You obviously have not studied the subject.

And Dan, same to you. Your harrumphing about the ridiculousness of the alien possibility belies some sort of redneck bias and is as far from scientific investigation as one can get.

Where has all the Genius gone?

prince wrote:Right...and human DNA is an accident, and so is the universe...

And software writes itself.

ok, but if you insert some kind of intelligent creator, then you have to ask "what/who created that"?

You haven't solved anything by introducing a creative cosmic consciousness, you're left with the exact some problem you have when you try to work with the Atheist framework.

@Carl,

Just because something is possible, doesn't warrant belief in it. I've read enough of you to know you have some eccentric beliefs, but they seem to be based on the fact that these weird things you wish to believe are merely possible, rather than probable.

I know, you have been to some fringe websites and read books, they have told you amazing stories. I have no doubt they exercised convincing rhetoric, but it's just hearsay and anecdote. It's no reason to start forming beliefs.

--

Cory Duchesne wrote: Carl,

Just because something is possible, doesn't warrant belief in it.

Agreed. I'm not speaking of beliefs. I haven't ventured a belief here about all crop circle formation, because I haven't reached a conclusion about that. I only said that the evidence indicates that it is highly unlikely that all formations are created by humans on the ground. And I've given reasons why.

I've read enough of you to know you have some eccentric beliefs

If by 'eccentric' you mean apart from the norm or the average, yes, I would agree. But 'Genius' as defined at this forum would qualify as well, so, you haven't really said much.

, but they seem to be based on the fact that these weird things you wish to believe are merely possible, rather than probable.

I think you are conjecturing. You are assigning the quality 'weird' to that to which you find fanciful and then assigning a fanciful theory about why I believe what I believe, or what I hold to be possible pending further evidence. I think it is you who wish to believe something.

I know, you have been to some fringe websites and read books

Ooooooh, scary. Fringe to what? To mainstream thinking, like this website? Fringe books like Quinn's and Solway's?

Oh, you mean David Icke. We've been through this, nothing Icke says is true. Oh, right some of it is true, but because there are ideas of his you consider wacky all of it should be thrown out. Even the demonstrably provable parts.

, they have told you amazing stories. I have no doubt they exercised convincing rhetoric, but it's just hearsay and anecdote. It's no reason to start forming beliefs.

Nice fairy tale, but tired old strawman. Fact is, again, on this subject of crop formations I have ventured NO opinion of who is doing some of them. I have only said that some of them are extremely hard to explain as being the work of humans on the ground. And I have given reasons why.

Honestly I don't know why so many of our so-called Geniuses are so unscientific minded and so prone to illogic and to such spilling out of their delusions.

Carl G wrote: If by 'eccentric' you mean apart from the norm or the average, yes, I would agree. But 'Genius' as defined at this forum would qualify as well, so, you haven't really said much.

I've always looked at eccentricity as being a big risk with large failure rate. It's not so much that I'm against it, because obviously I have my own eccentricities, but lots of people out there are eccentric, and most are in error. They are usually indulging in the egotistical gratifications and highs that come from separating oneself from the herd, the pleasures of believing in amazing things.

I think you are conjecturing. You are assigning the quality 'weird' to that to which you find fanciful and then assigning a fanciful theory about why I believe what I believe, or what I hold to be possible pending further evidence. I think it is you who wish to believe something.

I just think you believe too much of what you read. Just a theory, of course I could be wrong.

Fringe to what? To mainstream thinking, like this website? Fringe books like Quinn's and Solway's?

Like I said, most stuff on the fringe is error, kind of like the majority of genetic mutations are useless. Only once in a while does a mutation "work". And by the way, I don't necessarily see eye to eye on everything QRS, nor do I completely buy into the whole Genius mindset here. I was just a reckless kid when I came on this forum, and obviously was a little too gung-ho on gobbling up the teachings. I'm still trying to figure things out at the moment.

Oh, you mean David Icke. We've been through this, nothing Icke says is true. Oh, right some of it is true, but because there are ideas of his you consider wacky all of it should be thrown out. Even the demonstrably provable parts.

I was wrong to get on your case about Icke like that for a couple reasons, mainly because I didn't know what it was exactly that you liked about him. Obviously I detest the emphasis on reptilian bloodlines, extraterrestrials, astral bodies, and I don't believe there is as much of a monarchy as he leads on. But I don't want to discuss the politics, because I can only go by what I've read, which is not very certain. I just have what I can see myself.

Besides Icke, I know you like (or at least used to show an affinity for)Gnosticism and the like, which I think is fairy tale stuff.

Nice fairy tale, but tired old strawman. Fact is, again, on this subject of crop formations I have ventured NO opinion of who is doing some of them. I have only said that some of them are extremely hard to explain as being the work of humans on the ground. And I have given reasons why.

Of course they are hard to explain, humans are ingenious like that. Then again, I suppose it could be the result of natural forces we don't understand. It could be aliens, but if it is, it looks like they are just screwing with our heads for fun, which doesn't seem plausible to me, but what do I know.

Carl G wrote:Dumb remark of the month!

...

Carl G wrote:Nick, you're just shooting from the hip. You're throwing logic to the wind.

I'm being perfectly reasonable. You should try it some time.

Carl G wrote:"Entire organizations" making circles professionally does not in any way lead to the conclusion that all circles are human made. You obviously have not studied the subject.

That's not the point moron. I've seen humans demonstrate how to make crop circles, humans can do some pretty crazy shit when enough of them put their minds together. Crop circles aren't even that big of a deal considering humans figured out how to split the atom 70 years ago. Have I witnessed how every single crop circle wad made? No. Am I confident that all crop circles are made by humans? Yes. Why you say? Because humans are the only things that have ever been documented as having actually MADE a crop circle, and nothing else has!

It's similar as to why I believe all houses are made by humans. Have I witnessed every single house being built by humans? No! Am I confident that all houses are made by humans? Yes!

You are either hallucinating, gullible, or just plain stupid if you arrive at any other conclusion.

Carl G wrote:Where has all the Genius gone?

Carl, I'd actually be worried if you did see genius in anything I've said.

prince wrote:Right...and human DNA is an accident, and so is the universe...

How does equating the idea that "humans make crop circles" with the idea that "DNA and the Universe is an "accident" make any sense? Is this some sort of subconscious tendency of yours coming to the surface, e.g. that anything humans do is merely an "accident" as opposed to the constructive creation demonstrated by your god?

prince wrote:And software writes itself.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that scientists and computer programmers are working on that. It might have even been done already.

Nick Treklis wrote:That's not the point moron. I've seen humans demonstrate how to make crop circles,

On a moonless rainy night? Please link to your source for this.

humans can do some pretty crazy shit when enough of them put their minds together. Crop circles aren't even that big of a deal considering humans figured out how to split the atom 70 years ago.

Crop circles which show no signs of human feet or tools are no big deal? Crop stalks with bent elongated nodes but which are otherwise undamaged are no big deal?

Have I witnessed how every single crop circle wad made? No. Am I confident that all crop circles are made by humans? Yes. Why you say? Because humans are the only things that have ever been documented as having actually MADE a crop circle, and nothing else has!

A dumb and completely illogical remark.

It's similar as to why I believe all houses are made by humans. Have I witnessed every single house being built by humans? No! Am I confident that all houses are made by humans? Yes!

Not comparable for various reasons, two of which are given, for the umpteenth time, above.

You are either hallucinating, gullible, or just plain stupid if you arrive at any other conclusion.

Sorry, I can't buy into your poor delusional mental process.

Carl G wrote:Where has all the Genius gone?

Carl, I'd actually be worried if you did see genius in anything I've said.

Me, too. It would make me delusional like you.

Carl G wrote:On a moonless rainy night? Please link to your source for this.

Did you forget there are such things as flash lights and rain coats?

Carl G wrote:Crop circles which show no signs of human feet or tools are no big deal? Crop stalks with bent elongated nodes but which are otherwise undamaged are no big deal?

I never said that making a crop circle, especially in a discrete manner, doesn't require a lot of skill. But no, none of that is a big enough deal for me to jump to the conclusion that anything besides humans are responsible for crop circles.

Carl G wrote:

Have I witnessed how every single crop circle wad made? No. Am I confident that all crop circles are made by humans? Yes. Why you say? Because humans are the only things that have ever been documented as having actually MADE a crop circle, and nothing else has!

A dumb and completely illogical remark.

Yes I'm the one being dumb and illogical because I don't entertain and jump to conclusions without sound evidence.

Carl G wrote:

It's similar as to why I believe all houses are made by humans. Have I witnessed every single house being built by humans? No! Am I confident that all houses are made by humans? Yes!

Not comparable for various reasons, two of which are given, for the umpteenth time, above.

No matter how difficult it appears on the surface to make crop circles, there is still far more evidence that humans are responsible for each and every one of them, because humans make crop circles on a regular basis (and make a profit doing it I might add), and there is NO evidence to support that anything else besides humans make them! It's like people who think their god is valid because no one can provide evidence to the contrary! The burden of proof is on you Carl!

Carl G wrote:

You are either hallucinating, gullible, or just plain stupid if you arrive at any other conclusion.

Sorry, I can't buy into your poor delusional mental process.

Carl you've already shown yourself as having a predisposition to put "paranormal" explanations on par with "normal" explanations. So your disagreement with me on this matter is no surprise.

Carl G wrote:And Dan, same to you. Your harrumphing about the ridiculousness of the alien possibility belies some sort of redneck bias and is as far from scientific investigation as one can get.

Where has all the Genius gone?

What the fuck has this baseless speculation got to do with Genius? There's no evidence for such alien activity, Carl - none. I do not find the speculation credible (with some notions just plain childish). This does not mean I reject it outright or think no testing of the hypothesis should exist - i.e. I'm passingly open to the incredible. I reckon you are too invested in it to see it objectively.

[edit: "baseless" was too strong a word there. A piece of speculation cannot really be entirely baseless since it is speculative.]

Nick Treklis wrote:

Carl G wrote:On a moonless rainy night? Please link to your source for this.

Did you forget there are such things as flash lights and rain coats?

You know that is not what I mean.

Do you also know that some of the circles are hundreds of feet across and are done with great precision, often on rolling ground, and sometimes with corrections to make the formation appear completely symmetrical only from the air? There are no professional groups I know of that admit to this degree of layout work or who have demonstrated their skills on camera at night. So again, please link me to them, to make your case.

Carl G wrote:Crop circles which show no signs of human feet or tools are no big deal? Crop stalks with bent elongated nodes but which are otherwise undamaged are no big deal?

I never said that making a crop circle, especially in a discrete manner, doesn't require a lot of skill. But no, none of that is a big enough deal for me to jump to the conclusion that anything besides humans are responsible for crop circles.

Please link me to information that explains the lack of stake marks on some formations. How are these pros doing it? And how are they microwaving the crops and swirling them to get the elongated nodes and the intricate weaves without physical damage to the stalks? I and many others would really like to know.

Carl G wrote:

Have I witnessed how every single crop circle wad made? No. Am I confident that all crop circles are made by humans? Yes. Why you say? Because humans are the only things that have ever been documented as having actually MADE a crop circle, and nothing else has!

A dumb and completely illogical remark.

Yes I'm the one being dumb and illogical because I don't entertain and jump to conclusions without sound evidence.

I believe that is exactly what you are doing. Once again, all I can infer from this is that you haven't studied the matter or that you cannot think clearly, or both.

Carl G wrote:

It's similar as to why I believe all houses are made by humans. Have I witnessed every single house being built by humans? No! Am I confident that all houses are made by humans? Yes!

Not comparable for various reasons, two of which are given, for the umpteenth time, above.

No matter how difficult it appears on the surface to make crop circles, there is still far more evidence that humans are responsible for each and every one of them,

No, there is precisely a LACK of evidence of human activity in some circles. This itself is evidence. Therefore it is illogical to ASSUME anything about the makers, pending further study and comparisons.

because humans make crop circles on a regular basis (and make a profit doing it I might add),

No, this is where your train of thought derails because this statement simple DOES NOT follow from the last. Evidence of humans in some circles does not infer probability that other circles which exhibit no evidence of humans are human-made. Especially when such circles appear year after year and on average are much more complex than those made by professional circle makers. No, such a pattern deserves study, as is being done, not simply base assumptions.

and there is NO evidence to support that anything else besides humans make them! It's like people who think their god is valid because no one can provide evidence to the contrary! The burden of proof is on you Carl!

The evidence is in the anomalies I have already mentioned and in the lack of evidence of human construction, at least with ordinary and known technology. And the fact that very few groups have come forward or been caught on the private lands on which the formations appear only reinforces the mystery that currently exists, the mystery that cannot be justifiably, from a scientific perspective, written off as "of course they must be human made," which would be akin to modern superstition or acceptance as an article of faith.

I know, you don't acknowledge that any mystery exists, that there is anything currently unknown about any of the crop formations. Nevertheless, evidently there is. There are observable differences between some and others.

Carl you've already shown yourself as having a predisposition to put "paranormal" explanations on par with "normal" explanations. So your disagreement with me on this matter is no surprise.

I have not. I have claimed no paranormal cause for this phenomenon, nor any other phenomenon or idea on this board. Indeed I have always championed strict scientific inquiry, and it is others who prefer to publish their leaps to conclusions of all kinds.

No, there is precisely a LACK of evidence of human activity in some circles

That's where a lot of the bullshit occurs.

While I couldn't be bothered reading up on this, I'd bet many of those conclusions are completely unscientific (examinations performed by those who wish to believe or gain attention) or just straight out speculations that have been twisted by chinese whispers style quoting to supposedly become facts.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Carl G wrote:And Dan, same to you. Your harrumphing about the ridiculousness of the alien possibility belies some sort of redneck bias and is as far from scientific investigation as one can get.

Where has all the Genius gone?

What the fuck has this baseless speculation got to do with Genius?

To what nearly baseless speculation do you refer? That aliens are one possible explanation for some crop formations? That you are bias because you call such a possibility ridiculous?

There's no evidence for such alien activity, Carl - none.

There is plenty of evidence for alien presence here on earth. I figure that puts them in the pool of possibles for some of the crop formations, along with the secretive professional artist/surveyors, the high tech boys, the planet itself, and anything else worth considering, with conclusions pending conclusive evidence.

I do not find the speculation credible (with some notions just plain childish).

Because you do not recognize the possibility that extraterrestrials are visiting earth at all? Because you do not recognize the testimony of government whistleblowers, or the reported contactee experiences of any of the thousands of people worldwide, or any of the thousands of sightings of craft, or the stories told by the oral traditions of many of the world's indigenous peoples? I'm just asking.

This does not mean I reject it outright or think no testing of the hypothesis should exist - i.e. I'm passingly open to the incredible.

What is it that makes the possibility of alien presence seem 'incredible' to you, in the face of so much evidence? Does it have to do with difficulties imagining propulsion systems that could transport craft such distances? Does it have to do with expectations about the which channels and modes of communications aliens would use and our governmental response, and what sort of disclosure might be expected to ensue?

I reckon you are too invested in it to see it objectively.

I certainly feel I am looking at the crop formation phenomenon objectively. I have been with interest watching the investigation, admittedly from some distance, for quite a few years. Enough to feel, like many researchers, that there appear to be some which defy our ability to definitively attribute creation to humans using conventional methods. I have ventured no summary or conclusion, you will note, here at Genius, nor in my head.

Jamesh wrote:

No, there is precisely a LACK of evidence of human activity in some circles

That's where a lot of the bullshit occurs.

While I couldn't be bothered reading up on this, I'd bet many of those conclusions are completely unscientific (examinations performed by those who wish to believe or gain attention) or just straight out speculations that have been twisted by chinese whispers style quoting to supposedly become facts.

Ironically the above is bullshit, made up of completely unscientific speculation.

In short, what conclusions, what whispers? Oh right, you didn't read up on this.

And, as any good crime scene investigator would attest, lack of evidence is indeed evidence, Jamesh.

What sort of science - Wiki mentions virtually none....Carl Sagan indicated no UFO evidence

Colin Andrews perhaps :)

"In 1999, researcher Colin Andrews received funding from Laurence Rockefeller to conduct a two- year investigation into crop-circle hoaxing. Andrews put together a team that studied crop circles that had been commissioned by various media outlets and infiltrated several groups known to be creating man-made circles. Using these man-made circles as a base, Andrews went on to study data from circles found in England in 1999 and 2000. Andrews concluded that 80% of all circles studied showed "unassailable" signs of having been man-made, including post holes used to demarcate circle layouts or evidence of human tracks underlying the circle sites, but could not account for the remaining 20%[citation needed] Andrews's figures have been disputed by CSICOP who argue that his criteria for distinguishing between man-made circles and non-man-made circles were insufficient, as no official standard exists for determining the nature of a crop circle"

CEREOLOGY - Spinning Round in Circles
http://secure5.ozhosting.com/skeptics/t ... 1992/3.pdf

Carl G wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:

Carl G wrote:On a moonless rainy night? Please link to your source for this.

Did you forget there are such things as flash lights and rain coats?

You know that is not what I mean.

Um, I guess I don't.

Carl G wrote:Do you also know that some of the circles are hundreds of feet across and are done with great precision, often on rolling ground, and sometimes with corrections to make the formation appear completely symmetrical only from the air? There are no professional groups I know of that admit to this degree of layout work or who have demonstrated their skills on camera at night. So again, please link me to them, to make your case.

That's all real impressive, but just because you, and others have not figured out how to do this, doesn't mean other people haven't.

Carl G wrote:Please link me to information that explains the lack of stake marks on some formations. How are these pros doing it? And how are they microwaving the crops and swirling them to get the elongated nodes and the intricate weaves without physical damage to the stalks? I and many others would really like to know.

That's your job Carl, the burden of proof is on you. I'm entirely content not knowing exactly how they are done. Flattened crops, no matter how remarkable, just aren't that big of a deal to me.

Carl G wrote:

Yes I'm the one being dumb and illogical because I don't entertain and jump to conclusions without sound evidence.

I believe that is exactly what you are doing. Once again, all I can infer from this is that you haven't studied the matter or that you cannot think clearly, or both.

First of all, flattened vegetation isn't really that interesting to me. Secondly, if not jumping to conclusions in the absence of evidence is dumb and illogical, then you're just way too smart and logical for me Carl.

Carl G wrote:No, there is precisely a LACK of evidence of human activity in some circles. This itself is evidence.

Shapes and patterns of this nature are enough evidence for me to believe they were made by humans because humans are the only things I've ever known that creates these kinds of shapes. At best it this just means they are unexplained. It doesn't provide any evidence that anything other than humans are responsible for them.

Carl G wrote:Therefore it is illogical to ASSUME anything about the makers, pending further study and comparisons.

You're an idiot. By no means is it reasonable to assume ANYTHING about the makers. You just like to believe in fairy tales because you're bored with how things actually are.

Carl G wrote:No, this is where your train of thought derails because this statement simple DOES NOT follow from the last. Evidence of humans in some circles does not infer probability that other circles which exhibit no evidence of humans are human-made.

Yes it does, because humans are the only known thing in the universe that expresses their selves with these kinds of shapes and patterns. Crop circles are no exception.

Carl G wrote:Especially when such circles appear year after year and on average are much more complex than those made by professional circle makers. No, such a pattern deserves study, as is being done, not simply base assumptions.

Go study them, find out how the unexplained ones are made, I don't care. I'm willing to bet that nobody will ever find any compelling evidence that crop circles are made by anything other than humans. But if by chance I'm wrong, let me know.

Carl G wrote:The evidence is in the anomalies I have already mentioned and in the lack of evidence of human construction, at least with ordinary and known technology. And the fact that very few groups have come forward or been caught on the private lands on which the formations appear only reinforces the mystery that currently exists, the mystery that cannot be justifiably, from a scientific perspective, written off as "of course they must be human made," which would be akin to modern superstition or acceptance as an article of faith.

People make circles all the time, and just because you can't figure out how a particular kind of circle is made is no reason to believe they are done by anything other than humans.

Carl G wrote:I know, you don't acknowledge that any mystery exists, that there is anything currently unknown about any of the crop formations. Nevertheless, evidently there is. There are observable differences between some and others.

I'm not denying people haven't figured out exactly how all crop circles are made. I'm just saying that's no reason to put paranormal explanations on par with normal ones.

Carl G wrote:

Carl you've already shown yourself as having a predisposition to put "paranormal" explanations on par with "normal" explanations. So your disagreement with me on this matter is no surprise.

I have not. I have claimed no paranormal cause for this phenomenon, nor any other phenomenon or idea on this board. Indeed I have always championed strict scientific inquiry, and it is others who prefer to publish their leaps to conclusions of all kinds.

I know you aren't proposing a single explanation as the only one, but not every explanation is probable, and as it currently stands there is no more probable explanation for crop circles than humans. No other explanation even comes close to being as probable.

NickTrellis wrote: I confident that all crop circles are made by humans? Yes. Why you say? Because humans are the only things that have ever been documented as having actually MADE a crop circle.

You just like to believe in fairy tales because you're bored with how things actually are.

First of all, flattened vegetation isn't really that interesting to me.

Flattened crops, no matter how remarkable, just aren't that big of a deal to me.

Shapes and patterns of this nature are enough evidence for me to believe they were made by humans because humans are the only things I've ever known that creates these kinds of shapes.

...there is no more probable explanation for crop circles than humans. No other explanation even comes close to being as probable.

You're an idiot. By no means is it reasonable to assume ANYTHING about the makers.

You are either hallucinating, gullible, or just plain stupid if you arrive at any other conclusion.

People make circles all the time.

Did you forget there are such things as flash lights and rain coats?

Carl, I'd actually be worried if you did see genius in anything I've said.

Thanks for the funny. :-)

You can't offer a montage of uncontexual statements and think you've made a point. That's the sort of thinking/feeling that leads to aliens making crop images.

Dan Rowden wrote:You can't offer a montage of uncontexual statements and think you've made a point. That's the sort of thinking/feeling that leads to aliens making crop images.

The string of logical fallacies offered against the crop circle extra-terrestrial origin by Nick Trellis do not need a context other than the subject of this thread, to be humorous.
Thoughts conveyed as writing are more fallible and prone to misinterpretation leading to misunderstanding. Writing is also less expressive when conveying difficult concepts.
There are crop circles with writing incorporated in them as well.
Anyway, good day to you guys. :-)

The content of crop circles does not in itself constitute evidence for any specific creative source. Nick has rightly pointed out that the natural and logical interim conclusion to reach is that they are man-made, given we know that most are. Other explanations are therefore extraordinary and require extraordinary evidence, not mere speculation and childish "OMG" responses.

Just for Carl.

Skepticality podcast: Interview: Rob Irving (Crop Circles)

We have a very special guest, Rob Irving, from Circlemakers! Rob joined us to talk about the 'myth' of the crop circle and how he and the team of folks he works with create some of the beautiful and no-so-mysterious circles we see in the wheat.

It would be the most rational thing to disqualify the crop circle as a real "mystery" when there are two most reasonable explanations available, that is: hoaxes and wind vortexes or some strong oscillation patterns in the waving grain under certain conditions, perhaps generating some weak electromagnetic radiation as well. One could base this on the demonstrated evidence of the hoaxes combined with some eyewitness reports of circles forming.

Like farmer Rantala in Dodge County: "It looked like a lake. The waves, the wind blowing, and then all of the sudden this dark hole appears, like a black hole. And then immediately, one to the right then another to the center of it".

Or like the case from 1880 published back then in Nature by J. Rand Capron: " The storms about this part of Surrey have been lately local and violent, and the effects produced in some instances curious. Visiting a neighbour's farm on Wednesday evening (21st), we found a field of standing wheat considerably knocked about, not as an entirety, but in patches forming, as viewed from a distance, circular spots. "

Historically the circular patterns would have been regarded as a mystical sign which was cleverly played on by modern hoaxers.

It would be an interesting topic for scientific inquiry to get to the details of this phenomenon if somehow their occurrence could be predicted or simulated. Which means finally the hypothesis could be repeatedly tested. This cannot be said of the various alternative explanations, they don't offer a clear road to falsification or further testing.

Just like the UFO-phenomenon the field has been heavily polluted, 'twisted', with self-serving theorists, rumors and religious views. It becomes a source of excitement to the ones not willing to do any science on it, thereby making it a less likely subject for science, with all the contamination.

Diebert Van Rhjin wrote:It would be the most rational thing to disqualify the crop circle as a real "mystery" when there are two most reasonable explanations available, that is:

hoaxes and wind vortexes or some strong oscillation patterns in the waving grain under certain conditions, perhaps generating some weak electromagnetic radiation as well. One could base this on the demonstrated evidence of the hoaxes combined with some eyewitness reports of circles forming.

Clearly your opinions vaguely expressed in your post, are based on very little research on the subject. You seem to say a lot without actually, saying anything of substance. Are you implying that these are "natural" formations?
Unless you also believe nature knows binary code and is trying to mislead you, you should recognize, that such theory, does not make the "most" sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M42zprKbtDA
(edit: spelling :)

Nick Treklis wrote:How does equating the idea that "humans make crop circles" with the idea that "DNA and the Universe is an "accident" make any sense? Is this some sort of subconscious tendency of yours coming to the surface, e.g. that anything humans do is merely an "accident" as opposed to the constructive creation demonstrated by your god?

They are not directly related, I was simply expanding on your cynicism. My point being, dismissing crop circles as man made, is similar to concluding that the universe is just an accident, or 'man-made' if you like, ie. having no purpose other than what man decides it has. That is a fundamental error of logic.

The coherent capacities of the human mind is a result of recognition of coherence by design, it can not be any other way.

prince wrote:And software writes itself.

Nick Treklis wrote: Actually, I'm pretty sure that scientists and computer programmers are working on that. It might have even been done already.

Probably, but software does not write itself from scratch, that's my point.