Ten arguments for intelligent design

Mule Train said:

Thank you for your welcome. Which speculation, life not being natural or the unifying dynamic?

Click to expand...

Both really, but perhaps focus on the "life not being natural" first. That might be more straightforward.

Ok, well since nature has an almost unlimited area, material and time to accomplish a life combination, we should have detected it. In all directions and areas. According to mathematical probability, many civilizations should have come and gone. The EM pollution would last much longer than any civilization.

So, being that we have not, life must be unique. An event NOT caused by nature.

And being that it is so quiet(not one peep), Occam's razor should apply.

Mule Train said:

Ok, well since nature has an almost unlimited area, material and time to accomplish a life combination, we should have detected it. In all directions and areas. According to mathematical probability, many civilizations should have come and gone. The EM pollution would last much longer than any civilization.

So, being that we have not, life must be unique. An event NOT caused by nature.

And being that it is so quiet(not one peep), Occam's razor should apply.

Click to expand...

OK. It took a while to grasp that you were talking about extra-terrestrial life. I find several flaws in your argument. Specifically:
1. You are assuming that life, if and when it exsists, would always evolve sapient beings.
2. You are assuming that life arises readily, on many planetary systems.
3. You are assuming that such civilisations make use of EM wavelengths for communication.
4. You are assuming that such transmissions are of sufficient strength to be detected by us.

Fundamentally, you have taken one of the optimistic readings of the Drake equation and run with that, then concluded the silence is because there is no one else out there. Flawed logic throughout I am afraid.

I am only making one assumption. And the detectable evidence agrees with that assumption.

You are using probability......and look at all the assumptions/conditions needed for it.

Even if the alien life were just primordial, it should be common, and we would see spectra of it.

Even if it wasn't DNA based.......we would see something foreign or unfamiliar.

Think about it.........all we detect in every direction.....is just normal non bio matter.

Mule Train said:

I am only making one assumption. And the detectable evidence agrees with that assumption.

Click to expand...

What is that assumption?

Mule Train said:

You are using probability......and look at all the assumptions/conditions needed for it.

Click to expand...

On the contrary. I am not, in this context, using probability. I simply pointed out the assumptions inherent in your use of probability when you implicitly invoked the Drake equation. Remember? You said this:

Mule Train said:

According to mathematical probability, many civilizations should have come and gone.

Click to expand...

Mule Train said:

Even if the alien life were just primordial, it should be common, and we would see spectra of it.

Click to expand...

Please provide evidence, preferably in the form of research articles from well regarded peer reviewed journals, that alien life should be common.

Please provide evidence, preferably (as above), that we currently have the technology to detect the spectra of such life. (Helpful hint: we don't.)

Mule Train said:

Even if it wasn't DNA based.......we would see something foreign or unfamiliar..

Click to expand...

We do not have the technology to detect such life. Good luck trying to demonstrate that we do. Better yet, just accept that this is not currently a possibility,

Mule Train said:

Think about it.........all we detect in every direction.....is just normal non bio matter.

Click to expand...

Because that is all that we currently have the technology to detect. Again, if you think you can demonstrate that we can, then demonstrate it. I do mean demonstrate it, with appropriate references, not unsubstantiated assertions.

Mule Train said:

Ok, well since nature has an almost unlimited area, material and time to accomplish a life combination, we should have detected it. In all directions and areas. According to mathematical probability, many civilizations should have come and gone. The EM pollution would last much longer than any civilization.

So, being that we have not, life must be unique. An event NOT caused by nature.

And being that it is so quiet(not one peep), Occam's razor should apply.

Click to expand...

Note that we have no way of detecting civilizations in other galaxies, and there are a great many other galaxies, each containing a great many number of stars.

"What is that assumption?" that life is not from a natural process, and it's unique to this planet.

"On the contrary. I am not, in this context, using probability. I simply pointed out the assumptions inherent in your use of probability when you implicitly invoked the Drake equation."

Sorry, I thought you were for natural life. The only argument for alien life IS probability.

"Please provide evidence, preferably in the form of research articles from well regarded peer reviewed journals, that alien life should be common."

Ask any astronomer or astrophysicist.

"Please provide evidence, preferably (as above), that we currently have the technology to detect the spectra of such life. (Helpful hint: we don't.)"

I believe it is in development and being improved steadily. We will improve with A.I. Planet hunters started it and software DSPers stole it, ha ha.

"We do not have the technology to detect such life. Good luck trying to demonstrate that we do. Better yet, just accept that this is not currently a possibility,"

I believe that we do and that we would........for the very fact that it would be a foreign configuration and not DNA based.

It can not be proven. I can not prove intelligent design, just like you or science can not prove natural design. If you can prove natural design, then please draw a picture of a proton, a neutron and an electron and show me how they are connected.

You show me yours'...and I'll show you mine.

And as far as probability goes, how probable is it that an alien life will be more advanced? That means RF emission. If there is alien life, will would probably detect the advanced life before the primordial. Just another guess.

Mule Train said:

Sorry, I thought you were for natural life. The only argument for alien life IS probability.

Click to expand...

You were the one who raised the issue of probability. I have had nothing to say on it other than to point out that the probability arguments re-alien life form part of your argument, not - at present - mine.

Mule Train said:

Ask any astronomer or astrophysicist

Click to expand...

Internet convention, forum guidelines and common courtesy require that one backs up all unconventional assertions (and certain conventional ones) with appropriate citations. Please keep that in mind as we move ahead in this discussion.

However, since I have a score or two of books on abiogenesis and alien life I find your statement to be flawed. There is a wide range of opinion as to whether there are millions of civilisations in this galaxy alone, or that the Earth is unique in the Universe.

Mule Train said:

I believe it is in development and being improved steadily. We will improve with A.I. Planet hunters started it and software DSPers stole it, ha ha.

Click to expand...

So you are basing your argument, in part, on the expectation that when we have the technology to detect alien life we shall find nothing. That is a worthless argument.

Mule Train said:

I believe that we do and that we would........for the very fact that it would be a foreign configuration and not DNA based

Click to expand...

You are claiming that we can, right now, detect DNA on a planet ten light years away, one hundred light years away? Seriously!

Mule Train said:

It can not be proven. I can not prove intelligent design, just like you or science can not prove natural design. If you can prove natural design, then please draw a picture of a proton, a neutron and an electron and show me how they are connected.

Click to expand...

Science is not in the business of proving things. Science is in the business of constructing models that explain observations.
You are the one making bizarre claims. The onus is on you to back them up. I am not asking you to prove your case. I am asking you to produce a sound argument for it. Thus far your argument is as sound a liquified sand body in an earthquake.

Mule Train said:

And as far as probability goes, how probable is it that an alien life will be more advanced? That means RF emission. If there is alien life, will would probably detect the advanced life before the primordial. Just another guess.

Click to expand...

It is another guess and appears unrelated to your thesis, so why mention it.

Also, I have already pointed out that there is no reason to think that advanced alien life will automaitcally use radio transmissions, but there you are asserting it as an absolute certainty.

Edit: And would you please use the quote function. If you don't know how to send then me a pm and I'll walk you through it.

Ophiolite said:

Mule Train said:

Even if the alien life were just primordial, it should be common, and we would see spectra of it.

Click to expand...

Please provide evidence, preferably (as above), that we currently have the technology to detect the spectra of such life. (Helpful hint: we don't.)

We do not have the technology to detect such life. Good luck trying to demonstrate that we do. Better yet, just accept that this is not currently a possibility,
...
Because that is all that we currently have the technology to detect. Again, if you think you can demonstrate that we can, then demonstrate it. I do mean demonstrate it, with appropriate references, not unsubstantiated assertions.

Click to expand...

Exoplanet evolution: Astronomers expand cosmic 'cheat sheet'
(Paper here: http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab2769)

For the last half-billion years – roughly 10% our planet's lifetime – chlorophyll, present in many familiar forms of plant life such as leaves and lichen, has been the key component in Earth's biosignature. But other flora, such as cyanobacteria and algae, are much older than land-based vegetation, but their chlorophyll-containing structures leave their own telltale signs on a planet's surface.

"Scientists can observe surface biosignatures beyond vegetation on Earth-like exoplanets by using our own planet as the key for what to look for," O'Malley-James said.

"When we discover an exoplanet, this research gives us a much wider range to look back in time," Kaltenegger said. "We extend the time that we can find surface biota from 500 million years (widespread land vegetation) to about 1 billion years ago with lichen and up to 2 or 3 billion years ago with cyanobacteria."

Click to expand...

...
Light-sensing system could show distant galaxies in unprecedented detail
Paper here.

The system produces images in ultra-high clarity, and it can detect terahertz waves across a broad spectral range—an improvement of at least 10 times more than current technologies that only detect such waves in a narrow spectral range. Its broad range capabilities could allow it to do observations that currently require several different instruments. It identifies what elements and molecules—for example, water, oxygen, carbon monoxide and other organic molecules, are present in those regions of space by seeing if their individual telltale spectral signatures are present.

Click to expand...

On the subject of Drake's equation it does not take into consideration the age of the Universe or a time frame for the evolution of intelligent life.
Since we are the only known intelligent(?) life form in the Universe we can only make speculations on a sample size of one.
It took 4.5 billion years for an intelligent(?) life form to evolve in a Universe that is 13.8 billion years old.
Given that there have been a few pitfalls along the way such as the Permian or Cretaceous mass extinctions, it could be that 4.5 billion years is a statistical outlier and the evolution of intelligent life forms might take longer than the age of the Universe itself in which case intelligent life might be extremely rare.
Once again let me emphasise this is all speculation.

sjastro said:

On the subject of Drake's equation it does not take into consideration the age of the Universe or a time frame for the evolution of intelligent life.
Since we are the only known intelligent(?) life form in the Universe we can only make speculations on a sample size of one.
It took 4.5 billion years for an intelligent(?) life form to evolve in a Universe that is 13.8 billion years old.
Given that there have been a few pitfalls along the way such as the Permian or Cretaceous mass extinctions, it could be that 4.5 billion years is a statistical outlier and the evolution of intelligent life forms might take longer than the age of the Universe itself in which case intelligent life might be extremely rare.

Click to expand...

Yes!
The only argument I've ever encountered which comes close to challenging that, invoked the central limit theorem, but concealed within that same argument was also a first order reliance on a Copernican view of the universe (philosophically based .. and as yet, unverified beyond the earth-intelligent-life instance). The Fermi equation view turns out to be based on the same philosophically based tenet (when put to the test).

sjastro said:

Once again let me emphasise this is all speculation.

Click to expand...

Certainly is!
And even when that speculation is expressed as a testable hypothesis, (eg: SETI), its speculative predicate can be demonstrated as being no different from a belief .. (which then sits alongside all the rest of them that we are capable of coming up with).

sjastro said:

It took 4.5 billion years for an intelligent(?) life form to evolve in a Universe that is 13.8 billion years old.

Click to expand...

It took 3.7 or more billion years for an intelligent life to evolve on Earth.
Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Life first appeared on Earth 3.7 billion or more years ago.
Humans have had satellite technology since 1957 (62 years ago). It looks like we will devastate our planet through global warming or war in the not too distant future. Maybe 100 year or more, but very unlikely for us to be around for another 1,000 years.
Consider 1,000 years in the context of 13.8 billion years.
And also consider the size of our universe and the time it takes light (and anything) to travel across space.
If intelligent life is out there at a specific place in the universe and for a specific short time frame (lets say 1,000 years) what are the chances that people on Earth will discover it in our life times when we are capable of discovering that (i.e. we have capable technology)

sjastro said:

it could be that 4.5 billion years is a statistical outlier and the evolution of intelligent life forms might take longer than the age of the Universe itself in which case intelligent life might be extremely rare.
Once again let me emphasise this is all speculation.

Click to expand...

We know for a fact it doesn't take longer than the age of the universe itself to evolve intelligent life.
Because we are here.

stevil said:

... If intelligent life is out there at a specific place in the universe and for a specific short time frame (lets say 1,000 years) what are the chances that people on Earth will discover it in our life times when we are capable of discovering that (i.e. we have capable technology)

Click to expand...

So let me rephrase this (to simplify) .. the underlined part above is a hypothetical, therefore you're asking:
'If {hypothetical scenario} what are the chances ..(etc)'

'The chances' are totally dependent on the hypothetical .. therefore 'the chances' are no different from the hypothetical's.

stevil said:

We know for a fact it doesn't take longer than the age of the universe itself to evolve intelligent life.
Because we are here.

Click to expand...

.. (and we could be the statistical outlier case).

Pardon me Ophiolite. There seems to be some confusion. I went back and read our posts. I did not make any assumptions or use the Drake equation for my premise.

The only evidence to promote a view about it.....is the spectra. That spectra does not require that the alien life have transmitters. Or walk.

DSP(digital signal processing) has evolved into it's own science. It's quite amazing. With the DSP and fast hardware, it could be mistaken for magic.

For example, I read an article where they had plotted the directions of the superposition of shadows. Think that one over. A surveillance technique for looking in the angle of the dark. Exciting times for a young fella.

The point is, we would notice any spectra change, quickly with the software.

In the future, there might be a way to put a distance or length stamp, or even a time stamp on a ray of light. Faster switches will reveal more secrets.

A length stamp would be nice. What would science think if in all the star light, no ray was more than a billion miles long? It would make a good mystery movie.

I don't believe in randomness or probability, but science insists on it. It's roots are probably in the use of averages. First as a range description, later as a physical property. I believe it only to be apparent. A mirage. But man loves a chance. Chance is explanation B.

Mule Train said:

Pardon me Ophiolite. There seems to be some confusion. I went back and read our posts. I did not make any assumptions or use the Drake equation for my premise.

The only evidence to promote a view about it.....is the spectra. That spectra does not require that the alien life have transmitters. Or walk.

DSP(digital signal processing) has evolved into it's own science. It's quite amazing. With the DSP and fast hardware, it could be mistaken for magic.

For example, I read an article where they had plotted the directions of the superposition of shadows. Think that one over. A surveillance technique for looking in the angle of the dark. Exciting times for a young fella.

The point is, we would notice any spectra change, quickly with the software.

In the future, there might be a way to put a distance or length stamp, or even a time stamp on a ray of light. Faster switches will reveal more secrets.

A length stamp would be nice. What would science think if in all the star light, no ray was more than a billion miles long? It would make a good mystery movie.

I don't believe in randomness or probability, but science insists on it. It's roots are probably in the use of averages. First as a range description, later as a physical property. I believe it only to be apparent. A mirage. But man loves a chance. Chance is explanation B.

Click to expand...

That reads like metaphysical mumbojumbo.

Assertions and no data makes for very poor science.

SelfSim said:

So let me rephrase this (to simplify) .. the underlined part above is a hypothetical, therefore you're asking:
'If {hypothetical scenario} what are the chances ..(etc)'

'The chances' are totally dependent on the hypothetical .. therefore 'the chances' are no different from the hypothetical's.

Click to expand...

The chances are dependant on the size of the universe and the age of the universe.

We can only see but a very small fraction of the universe, that which we call the observable universe.
If we look too far even within our observable universe then we are seeing the early universe, which is back to a time before evolution could have even developed intelligent life.
Also if we (humanity) have only been looking for 62 years of the 14 billion years
that is 0.0000000443% of all time, and only of a very small percentage of space (observable universe vs the whole universe).

It would be ridiculous for us to view such a small part of existence and say since we haven't seen other life then there mustn't be life anywhere else or any-when else in the universe.

Mule Train said:

Pardon me Ophiolite. There seems to be some confusion. I went back and read our posts. I did not make any assumptions or use the Drake equation for my premise.

Click to expand...

If there is confusion it was generated by this seemingly unequivocal statement by you, in your first post:

Mule Train said:

According to mathematical probability, many civilizations should have come and gone.

Click to expand...

That was an integral part of your concise thesis.
It implicitly invokes the Drake equation.
If that implication was unintended, you still clearly referenced probability and used it as an integral part of your argument.

You made some other points I wish to discuss with you, but lets sort out the probability issue first. It's probably a good idea.

stevil said:

The chances are dependant on the size of the universe and the age of the universe.

We can only see but a very small fraction of the universe, that which we call the observable universe.
If we look too far even within our observable universe then we are seeing the early universe, which is back to a time before evolution could have even developed intelligent life.
Also if we (humanity) have only been looking for 62 years of the 14 billion years
that is 0.0000000443% of all time, and only of a very small percentage of space (observable universe vs the whole universe).

It would be ridiculous for us to view such a small part of existence and say since we haven't seen other life then there mustn't be life anywhere else or any-when else in the universe.

Click to expand...

Our respective points are talking past eachother.
My point is that your argument relies on a circular reasoning (ie: its fallcious). The whole issue revolves around your unstated (and untested) assumption that another instance of intelligent life is (provisionally) actually somewhere in the universe (which is unsupported by objective observations and untested) .. therefore your subsequent statistical argument acquires the same 'truth' value as that premise. This is not a scientifically formed argument.

I could be generous on this occasion and say that you may be implicitly invoking any of; the Copernican Principle, Cosmological Principle, or their variant embedded in the Drake equation (all unstated) .. but all of these are based on the exact same tenet as your above argument (ie: 'truth' exists .. which is a scientifically untestable belief).

Until we get over this point, discussing the 'likelihood' (or 'unlikelihood') by citing the universe's physical statistics as 'evidence', is irrelevant because you have already assumed the outcome a priori.

Please understand, this is a widespread, commonly held misconception .. (I certainly don't intend is as being directed at you personally).

Hello Ophiolite. The reference to mathematical probability is part of the argument against I.D. It's part of science's argument. Not mine. I was comparing their stance to the stance of I.D.

You say that argument is from the drake equation...ok. Is that the only probability they use?

Instead of saying according to math probability, replace that with according to every astronomer ever interviewed, whatever their reasons. Have you ever met an astronomer who believes in I.D.?

They believe in natural life. Self-life. This is why probability is a sensible possibility for them.

I believe every aspect of our reality was designed.

Ophiolite said:

.. It implicitly invokes the Drake equation.

Click to expand...

The DE is a discussion guide only. There is no objective evidence that its terms necessarily apply, (ie: are true), outside the context of Earth's life. In fact, one can go on adding or modifying the terms at a whim, ad nauseum, in order to produce the outcome one believes is true.