User:Wendul

They are not. Yet you appear here to be blindly denying outright and categorically that any distinctions about what constitutes intelligent activity or contamination, including anything circumstantial, can be methodologically traced out (and certainly that it cannot determined with any confidence at all) on the basis of empirical definition, observation, and probabilities. You apparently have turned to personal attributions and ad hominem instead. ELSEWHERE IN SCIENCE, THESE WOULD ONLY BE DEEMED OPINIONS.

That is always the one that prompts the punchline. Nonetheless, if what you are asserting here about the nature of determining intelligent vs inanimate cause is true or could even be proven to be the case, then detectives and prosecutors are constantly taking a wrong turn in their investigation of crimes, and our Western courts have no right to attribute criminal blame or the death penalty to individuals as opposed to always deeming them blanksheet 'acts of God.' Of course, contrary to what you asserted here and still out of respect for it, I find that there are characteristically observable differences between animate-caused events and completely inanimate laid down ones. EVOLUTION IS TRULY A SUBJECTIVE SCIENCE. You should be so free!

It also has a lot to do with causal attribution. How many times do we have to read conclusions drawn on simple, lazy preassumptions attributed only on the basis of the activities of group stereotyping and illogical reasoning practices in scientific debate? AND THEY WON'T ADMIT PEOPLE BASICALLY ONLY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THIS WHEN IT RELATES TO THE DEFINITION OF VARIABLES AND DIFFERENTIATION OF METHODS.