Wouldn't Alien Life Undermine Atheism?

[Nathan45]

now that my brain is back, and i actually read the correct link, i'm actually skeptical of that link, too.

Did you really read the steps? Visual similarity doesn't say much about a galaxy's capacity to produce life.

The fact that all of his probabilities are round numbers like 10%, and they all eventually add up to exactly 1 galaxy, makes me think that the numbers are basically made up. He doesn't make any citations and it's a geocities site, so I wouldn't take that seriously.

 

[Nathan45]

let's analyze, anyway:

[FONT=Arial,]Any given galaxy usually occurs in a cluster of galaxies. If these clusters are too "rich" (or dense), galaxy collisions (or mergers) will disturb solar orbits too much for living organisms to survive. But if galaxy-clusters are too sparse, there will not be enough infusion of gasses to maintain star-formation for long enough to bring about life-sustaining conditions. -- 90% of the galaxies in the universe occur in clusters which are too rich or too sparse to allow for the survival of living organisms on any planets within.

How dense is too dense? how sparse is too sparse? he doesn't say, and there's honestly no known way of determining how dense is too dense or how sparse is too sparse for life, since we do not possess an exhaustive list of all possible life.

He then procedes to pull a number out of his rectum, 90%.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial,]The size of a galaxy can be destructive to the survivability of life. If a galaxy is too large, the infusion of gas and stars would disturb a sun’s orbit and ignite too many galactic eruptions. But if a galaxy is too small, there is an "insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for long enough time" to bring about life-sustaining conditions. -- 90% of galaxies are either too large or too small for life to exist there, and this means that 90% of the above galaxies (which occur in a suitable galaxy-cluster) are of the wrong size.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial,]

Again, how large is "too large", how small is "too small", how much gas is "insufficient" or sufficient or enough to disturb the sun's orbit? so where's he getting that 90% figure from? again, nice round number, pulled strait from his rectum.

and all of the made-up numbers are constructed so that the probability adds up to exactly 1. don't confuse this with an actual scientific website.

[/FONT]

 

[Nathan45]

i could also go on about how the probabilities he is using may not be independent with the other probabilities

[FONT=Arial,]90% of galaxies are either too large or too small for life to exist there, and this means that 90% of the above galaxies (which occur in a suitable galaxy-cluster) are of the wrong size [/FONT]

This simply does not follow: if 90% of all galaxies are X, that does not imply that 90% of a subset "the above galaxies" are X.

for example, is there any correlation between the size of a galaxy and the and the density of globular clusters in the galaxy? if there was, simply multiplying the probabilities would be improper.

But that analysis is sortof pointless considering that the website pulls the probability figures out of it's rectum, anyway.

 

[JediMobius]

let's analyze, anyway:



How dense is too dense? how sparse is too sparse? he doesn't say, and there's honestly no known way of determining how dense is too dense or how sparse is too sparse for life, since we do not possess an exhaustive list of all possible life.

He then procedes to pull a number out of his rectum, 90%.

[/font][FONT=Arial,]

Again, how large is "too large", how small is "too small", how much gas is "insufficient" or sufficient or enough to disturb the sun's orbit? so where's he getting that 90% figure from? again, nice round number, pulled strait from his rectum.

and all of the made-up numbers are constructed so that the probability adds up to exactly 1. don't confuse this with an actual scientific website.

[/FONT]

I just figured 1) the percentages are rounded to even numbers and 2) the percentages were derived from some sort of sample population that should be representative of the whole. It's obviously an estimated probability, and it's estimated at 1 out of 500 Trillion, but the universe in all likelihood exists beyond the ~500 trillion galaxies observed at that point. It doesn't need to be exact to put the chance of intelligent life developing on any planet into perspective. . . That's the other thing I'm not sure everyone's picking up on, it's a probability of multi-celled life that would result in an eventual society.

Of course it's not an actual scientific website! It says right toward the top that their breakdown is "[FONT=Arial,]based largely on the analysis of astrophysicist Hugh Ross, Ph.D." [/FONT]I'm pretty sure it's gonna take more than a minute to check Ross's actual analysis, all we're ever gonna get is a ballpark figure of the chance of sustainable life on other planet, so why don't we look at it that way when seeking a figure out? Get some facts before implying that someone else needs to get theirs.

 

[Nathan45]

It says right toward the top that their breakdown is "[FONT=Arial,]based largely on the analysis of astrophysicist Hugh Ross, Ph.D." [/FONT]I'm pretty sure it's gonna take more than a minute to check Ross's actual analysis

if that's even a real person. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

and you misunderstand my post, the numbers certainly arn't rounded, they're pulled from no where because they're not based on anything.

It's not specified how large is too large, or how small is too small. So when he says 90% are "too large, or too small", what size is too large, and what size is too small? so which galaxies is he even referring too?

Dr. Hugh Ross, if that's his real name, can fudge the numbers however he wants, because "too large" and "too small" is totally unknown.

 

[JediMobius]

i could also go on about how the probabilities he is using may not be independent with the other probabilities

This simply does not follow: if 90% of all galaxies are X, that does not imply that 90% of a subset "the above galaxies" are X.

for example, is there any correlation between the size of a galaxy and the and the density of globular clusters in the galaxy? if there was, simply multiplying the probabilities would be improper.

But that analysis is sortof pointless considering that the website pulls the probability figures out of it's rectum, anyway.

Well that's the question isn't it. Is each probability independent or not? It would be better to find out than to just assume it's all bunk.

 

[Nathan45]

Either way, even if the 90% figures are exactly accurate ( i assure you, they are just as likely to be accurate as a stopped clock), multiplying them together is still incorrect because there's probably some correlation between the two numbers. See my second post

 

[Nathan45]

Well that's the question isn't it. Is each probability independent or not? It would be better to find out than to just assume it's all bunk.

The probabilities are certainly not independent. That's one thing you can be absolutely sure about. The size of a galaxy is most definitely related to the density of globular clusters in it, if you could find no correlation between the two that would be incredible.

Second, when dealing with a geocities cite that doesn't cite references and picks out round numbers, and then tries to get me to accept Jesus, and doesn't even show it's work to show where the numbers come from, it's not my job to prove that the baseless unsupported numbers therin are inaccurate. I'll simply show that they're baseless and unsupported.

all i can show is that: 1) the logic used to multiply the numbers together is fallacious 2) there is not enough information present to possibly know the numbers it purports to know, 3) the numbers are suspiciously round.

 

[Nathan45]

if that's even a real person. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

i just looked him up on wikipedia, anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(creationist)

It does appear this is a real person, and considering that he's a creationist it probably is his work. At the same time, i don't need a PHD to tell you that it's complete rubbish.

 

[JediMobius]

if that's even a real person. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Already checked, there's a link to a .org site (those tend to be more reliable for veracity) The only thing is that he's biased toward intelligent design, but then again Dawkins is biased in thinking evolution proves atheism, and his work is considered sound, so who knows.

and you misunderstand my post, the numbers certainly arn't rounded, they're pulled from no where because they're not based on anything. It's not specified how large is too large, or how small is too small. Dr. Hugh Ross, if that's his real name, can fudge the numbers however he wants.

I think I understood your post just fine. You must have missed the part where I said the site was based on Dr. Ross's work. Ergo (oh, found his name) R. Totten holds the responsibility for the numbers appearing as they do. My assumption is that Totten took Ross's numbers and made them easier to work with and present.

I'll post a bunch of excerpts of Ross's articles with links a little later from the galaxy design section of reasons.orghttp://www.reasons.org/astronomy/galaxy-design

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Regarding the OP, I think there was a topic in the C&E subforum about how certain amino acids are thermodynamically favored, which certainly increases the chances of life arising.

 

[shinbits]

Basically evolution says we humans aren't necessarily special, unlike Religion that fulfills your wishful dreams of being created in the image of a god. According to evolution however we're just part of the animal kingdom. Finding life on another planet would reinforce this type of thought and to a degree contradicts with religion.

I know of no religion that states that life only exists on earth. I don't see how life on other planets would contradict religion.

h and chance arguments, are, as always; weak arguments. Especially without showing the chance calculation to begin with.

- Ectezus

it's scientifically weak, yes. but on a philosophical and rational scale, chance arguments hold a lot of weight. for example, if a someone is discovered to have child porn in their home, chances are that they are dangerous to children. while there's no way to actually measure what the probability that they will molest a child given the chance, it's still a rational argument that such people should not be around kids.

even when discussing science, that thread about amino acids and thermodynamic probability of life arising, is far from a "weak" argument.

 

[Hespera]

Pwnzer... im kind of slow but i got it figured out...

Panzerfaust

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Pwnzer... im kind of slow but i got it figured out...

Panzerfaust

 

[ragarth]

adenine C5H5N5
uracil C4H4N2O2
cytosine C4H5N3O
guanine C5H5N5O

Ribose C5H10O5
Phosphate: PO4

thermodynamic favoratism of nitrogenous bases and ribomes
SpringerLink - Journal Article

self replicating RNA with provolution
Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme -- Lincoln and Joyce 323 (5918): 1229 -- Science

synthesis of full nucleotides via natural abiogenic methods:
ScienceDirect - Advances in Space Research : Abiogenic synthesis of nucleotides in conditions of space flight of the biosputnik “BION-11”

So here we have all the building blocks of life forming via abiogenic means all the way up to basic nucleotides (a nucleotide consists of a nitrogenous base, a ribome, and a phosphate), and a research paper I can't read fully that describes a sequence of events that would create long polymerase chains. The only thing we're missing is a minimum length and number of self-replicating chains within that length.

A length I arbitrarily found was 114:
Nucleotide sequence of microvariant RNA: another small replicating molecule.

Only problem is I can find nothing saying how many combinations within that are self-replicating, it could be anywhere from 'all of them' to 'none' but more than likely in between. If we start plugging in random value we get some figures:

4^114 = 1 in 4*10^68 chance a single reaction will produce a self-replicating strand
2^114 = 1 in 2*10^34 chance a single reaction will produce a self-replicating strand
1^114 = 1 in 1 chance a single reaction will produce a self-replicating strand

Now let's have some math fun, let's arbitrarily assume that the number of reactions taking place at any moment on a prebiotic earth is equal to the number of grains of sand upon the earth (10^24) and lets assume that a reaction takes place every minute, we get:

(10^68 / 10^24) / (364 * 24 * 60) = 7.6*10^38 years
(2*10^34 / 10^24) / (364 * 24 * 60) = 38156 years
(1 / 10^24) / (364 * 24 * 60) = 10^-30 years (let's just assume 1 second, shall we?)

So the top and bottom ones seem very unlikely, and the middle one seems really low. We can't put a date on the start of the RNA World Hypothesis if it's correct because our only figures (4 billion years ago for life) go back to when early cells existed and RNA World does not rely strictly upon cells- at best ligand globs as stated by an earlier poster or simply free floating. Let's not let reality stop us though! Now we get into pointless speculation. (moreso than this post already is. Seriously, I'm all but pulling figures out of my butt here.) Let's assume 4 billion years ago RNA World began, that gives us 400 million years of chemical processes to produce it. Reversing the equation:

Chance = Time(total) * Time(reaction) * Number(reactions per unit time)

So plug it in for 400 million (age of earth - 4 billion give or take a bit)

Chance = Time(total) * Time(reaction) * Number(reactions per unit time)

400000000 * (364 * 24 * 60) * 10^24 = a 1 in 2*10^38 chance per reaction

So there you go, the chances for life to arise on a given planetary body fitting the requisites for life are very, very good even if the per-reaction chance is crazy mofo with a nuke low.

N.B. Most of this is whipped out of the aether of my swiss cheese, take it worth the value of a fart, or the value of my dog's fart.

 

[Ectezus]

I know of no religion that states that life only exists on earth. I don't see how life on other planets would contradict religion.

I said 'to a degree'. If we would find intelligent life on another planet for example, heaven forbid more intelligent then it does raise some difficult questions for Theists while none whatsoever for evolutionists.

it's scientifically weak, yes. but on a philosophical and rational scale, chance arguments hold a lot of weight.

Assuming you can determine all the relevant factors and have a good estimation on what the variables should be then yes, chance calculations can useful.

If however used to say something about the unknown with unknown variables and estimations based on sheer guesses, then no. It's a weak argument.
This is why I've asked the OP to provide his 'chance calculation' other than just saying "it's really really low".


- Ectezus

 

[Tenka]

Do we agree that mindless chemicals arranging themselves so that life is created, is/was an extremely unlikely event?

No, life seems to be a chemical process, meaning that if the conditions are right it will be generated. Our own planet has a number of examples of life thriving in incredibly extreme environments.

If the same unlikely event were to take place more than once, a rational person would understand that it is less likely that those events were “natural” or happenstance.

This is an extreme leap of logic you've made here. A rational conclusion would be that the event is more likely than previously calculated.

For me to win the state lottery is extremely unlikely but not impossible. But if I won the lottery twice within a year, and a close relative of mine also won twice within a year, those events would be investigated by the authorities because they would conclude that it is not possible that these events occurred naturally; that there had to be design and planning (cheating) involved, right?

This analogy doesn't seem to fit the story.
First of all, life is a not a random chance of occurring phenomenon, it is chemical and chemistry is not random.
Secondly, the chance of you winning the lottery is small, but the chance of someone winning is reasonably high. Life occurred in our system once, we won the lottery once so there is a higher chance of the next winner being far away.

The same is true for a one-time event: if I tossed a shuffled deck of cards in the air, and they all fell aligned left to right by rank and suit, a person would have to be pretty gullible to believe that I had not somehow “rigged” the event's outcome.

Again, life is not random. It occurs if the conditions happen to be right.

To be an atheist one has to accept that a one-in-a-googolplex event accidentally happened on Earth; to continue as an atheist after the discovery of extraterrestrial life one would have to believe the same virtual impossibility happened at least twice.

Show your working for this googolplex chance.

Your entire argument is counter intuitive, the more often something occurs the more mundane and more probable it is.

 

[ragarth]

Okay, I slept, so now I feel a bit more like explaining some of my assumptions in my previous post. The first biggie is my choice of base pairs: 4, 2, and 1. 4 is obvious, a given position within a length of RNA can have 4 different molecules in it, giving us 4 different possible solutions. The 2 is there because we can divide these four nucleotides into 2 groups: Adenine always binds with Guanine and Thymine always bonds with Uracil, therefore since there's no other value than self replication it's feasible that it doesn't matter which in a given group binds because it will always produce it's compliment, ergo 2 possible solutions. The 1 is arbitrary and used as a representative of every possible combination of 114 base pairs being a solution, so the chances are 1:1.

My choice of the grains of sand in the world is arbitrary because there is nothing that tells us how many chemical reactions might have taken effect in prebiotic earth. Seawater and hydrothermal vents are likely with seawater having a more diffuse density than the vents. Since the area needed for a chemical reaction is smaller than that for a grain of sand then in a chemical and energy rich environment you can have several reactions in the same space as a single grain of sand. I didn't provide a range for this as I did for the base pairs because the factors that go into this are majorly game changing, if we take into account only long polymerase production here on earth, it's probably high, if we take into account long polymerase production in asteroids and comets in our solar system then it's probably low, if we take into account polymerase production in the accretion disk of the sun during planet formation then the figure is stupidly low, ergo the range is so massive I used the first thing that popped into my mind and since the common refrain is 'the chances are larger than the number of grains of sand on the planet' and 'the chances are greater than the number of stars in the universe' I decided to go with sand.

Also, a correction! I put 4 million years, it's supposed to be 400 million years!

400000000 * (364 * 24 * 60) * 10^24 = a 1 in 2*10^38 chance per reaction

 

[Hespera]

The whole thing about intelligent life and how that impacts religion, to me anyway would be...do they worship god / the same god / do they even have the concept of a god.

If they are way more advanced... that wont be hard..and they never even imagined having a religion, or said that was abandoned a million years ago. then what does that say?

Aside from an opening for the pairs of young men with dark suits...

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

In an infinitely large universe, it seems infinitely improbable that we are the only life it contains.