If science can talk about "codes" within parts of our bodies and within nature minus acknowledging a code-maker, then I think we can start talking about a lot of archaelogical discoveries across the board that may appear to have been of human origin, but were simply of natural origin.
Increasing complexity, after all, is the standard earmark of scientific discovery. That is the condeded pattern.
So, mark this equation: Any rudimentary object is the potential ancestor/parent of increasingly complex objects. The totally unsophisticated can morph into the sophisticated, as long as your recipe has "enough" time (whatever that is).
So, 500,000 years for nature to work on an axe head? Oh, a few scratchings are a piece of cake in comparison to the wonder and awe of the worksmanship of our own bodies!
What? You don't believe my description about your unsophisticated, multiple great-grandthing as your original ancestor? All ya need to do is take a leap of faith like most normal scientific evolutionists, preaching at a university pulpit near you!
YEC mega-dittoes
At Least, THAT's what we Believe!!
Doc
..because we understand the natural processes by which such things arise...
then I think we can start talking about a lot of archaelogical discoveries across the board that may appear to have been of human origin, but were simply of natural origin.
Not if there's no known natural process which could produce such objects, no. But you do accidentally make a good point -- "paleoliths" (stone tools, etc.) usually can not be determined to be actually human-produced tools, unless there is independent evidence pointing towards associated human activity (such as cooking trash, campfires, yadda yadda). The reason is that it *is* actually pretty common for natural action (tumbling rocks, glaciers, etc.) to chip and shape rocks in ways that can closely resemble stone tools. The exception is when the form of the stone object happens to be clearly "worked" by hand or other tools instead of roughly chipped or ground into shape.
Increasing complexity, after all, is the standard earmark of scientific discovery. That is the condeded pattern.
Say what?
So, mark this equation: Any rudimentary object is the potential ancestor/parent of increasingly complex objects. The totally unsophisticated can morph into the sophisticated, as long as your recipe has "enough" time (whatever that is).
You know, you really should try to learn something about evolution before you attempt to ridicule it. Evolutionary processes require, among other things, *reproduction* in order to occur. Unfortunately for your sarcasm, "any rudimentary object", including for example chunks of rock as in the current discussion, don't reproduce. No reproduction, no evolution. So you're not just comparing apples and oranges, you're comparing apples and asteroids.
Nice try.
So, 500,000 years for nature to work on an axe head? Oh, a few scratchings are a piece of cake in comparison to the wonder and awe of the worksmanship of our own bodies!
See above.
What? You don't believe my description about your unsophisticated, multiple great-grandthing as your original ancestor?
I do, actually, because the evidence for it is overwhelming. Not that you'd know anything about that, apparently.
All ya need to do is take a leap of faith like most normal scientific evolutionists,
No, it does not take "faith" to accept evolution, it takes knowledge, evidence, and an understanding of the processes involved. Again, not that you would know -- it's so much easier to make fun of something you *don't* know enough about to appreciate...
preaching at a university pulpit near you!
Evolutionary biology is taught, not preached, and science classrooms are not pulpits. Ever actually been in one?