Challenge Match: jkrog08 vs TheMythLives: "Is There Intelligent Life Somewhere In The Universe?"

With all those stars in the Universe do you not think the odds are highly against only one average sized star in all of the likely infinite Universe having intelligent life?

1) Lets assume that life is on other planets. How do you know that it is intelligent?

2) What type of life forms are they? (The aliens). Are they of human genetic makeup? or something else entirely? etc. etc.

3) What is the universe, is it holographic? infinite? expanding? Electronic? Physical? etc. etc

4) What proof is their that what these ancients were seeing was not their imagination? Timetravelers? There technology? A different race of humans? etc. etc.

So lets review:

1) Chirality= 10 to the power of 33,113
2) Life Specific Amino Acids= 10 to the power of 6,021
3) Correct Amino ACid placement= 10 to the power of 13,010
4) Correct Genetic Material= 10 to the power of 60,155
5) And most importantly, gene placement, correct gene placement= 10 to the power of 528

Add it up it comes to the total of 10 to the power of 112,827 and worst of all its 1 out 10 to the 112,827. 1 !!!!

This originally comes from Dr. Ralph O. Muncaster? My friend, he is a PhD in Religious Education and Business Administration.

1. Given Occam’s Razor, what is more likely and why?

That in a 24 Sextillion star universe (likely twice that amount of planets) that only ONE planet “miraculously” developed life?
OR

That life is quite common throughout the Universe and there is nothing all that special about Earth?

2. Given the current evidence and models of an infinite Universe one must realize that there then becomes a 100% chance of another intelligent life form existing, considering the system is infinite. Also consider the quantum interpretation of probability. Your rebuttal to that?

I don’t think I need to even bother stating the obvious bias and lack of proper education in the field of biochemistry, genetics, and abiogenesis by a hardcore creationist! I am sure he knows more than PhD’s in biochemistry….

1) Since you do not "know" if life is out their on other planets, what are you basing your belief on? Probability?

2) Since you do not know what type of life forms they are, what evidence are you basing that they are intelligent?

3) Since you do not know what the universe is, how can you come to the conclusion that we are not in the matrix? Not in a golographic universe? etc. The reason I ask is because what if the above is true, that means that aliens do not exist and that also means that what we are seeing is a massive illusion.

The best theory that I know of this is the Drake Equation:

But if any of the life existed with these type of genetic and life forms a huge problem occurs to the Contact scenario (as hinted in jkrog08's OP). A big problem:

If these life forms were to come to earth, simply put, they would DIE. Arcenic needs Extreme cold to even be considered, but not to cold as to kill the life forms. Silicon needs so many things that it is almost impossible to think that they would even be alive.

1. How can you explain the stunning resemblance of the Kimberly, Australia cave paintings to those of modern day “Grey aliens” thousands of years before the first modern reports?

2. How can you explain the “Nuremberg Wood Carving” and the witness testimony of an obvious aerial battle in the sky?

3. How can you explain the very obvious looking, self illuminating saucer shaped object in the background of the Ghirlandaio painting? What was it then?

4. Since you dodged it before I will ask it again; Applying Occam’s Razor to this debate which seems more likely?

-That some very unlikely “biochemical miracle” occurred on only one planet out of an incomprehensible amount?
OR
-Life on Earth is quite common and no ‘1 out of 10^2000000’ probability occurred?

5. Finally, how can you explain the cross world ancient accounts of UFOs and drawings of beings that obviously look like a classic Grey alien by almost any account?

1) Why is it that their is no solid evidence of aliens visting earth, but assumptions from paintings? Because as we know paintings are not proof of anything. As I demonstared above.

2) If aliens came here, how did they manage to travel?

3) If they made CONTACT with people how did they not die? If their genetic makeup is different.

It could be just bad paintings or resemeblences to ghosts. They look more like ghosts then anything.

1. Applying Occam’s Razor, what is more likely given your theory of a “random Universe”; That the Aborigine’s coincidently drew mythological gods that look exactly like the Grey’s, or actually drew images representing an encounter with alien beings in their drawings(given your own theory of randomness as well)?

2. Can you explain in at least 3 sentences(more than just “the first one”) why Occam’s Razor dictates that Earth is the only planet with life(I do not believe you or anyone can)?

3. What’s your explanation of the modern abduction accounts?

4. You now know everything is not random. What is your revised rebuttal to the existence of intelligent life?

2) If aliens came here, how did they manage to travel?


Is this a fish market? LOL, just joking but seriously this is irrelevant to this debate.

Needless to say their very mythos sounds a lot like other stories around the world of “a race coming from the sky” to help or create humans and their culture. The “no speaking” part also sounds a lot like the reported telepathy of the Grey’s does it not?

That is a portion of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, it was pointed at a very small part of the sky, covering less than a fraction of a fraction percentage of the sky. It contains 10,000 GALAXIES (just that we can see), each galaxy contains on average around 100 BILLION stars. Those 10,000 galaxies only represent less than a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of the total number of galaxies in the observable Universe, which is AT LEAST 100 BILLION.

1) What is the evidnece other than probability that aliens exist?

2) How would the aliens get here?

3) Does the majority decision prove aliens?.

4) Would you agree that the colletive consciousness could be "wanting" or a "need" for humans not to be alone?

why is it that we have come up with no results? no proof? not even to add evidence that they might exist.

What were the odds of something being created out of nothing?

Alexandra Barnett, an astronomer and executive director of the Chabot Space and Science Center in Oakland, California," It would just be too tough a pill to swallow to believe that nothing else has evolved in all that time and space."

First of all this was an exceptional debate; congratulations to both fighters.

Both did a good job on the opening remarks but I felt that TheMythLives explained his premise better, However in the future you should make sure that your sources don't require a subscription to read.

In the following posts both fighters did an excellent job of defending and counter-attacking. Neither fighter allowed the other one to distract him with the red herrings both were using. I believe that jkog08 made better use of his Socratic questions to support his position and reveal any weakness in TheMythLives position.

Both of used excellent sources with the one exception noted above but I believe that jkog08's sources were slightly better.

Closing arguments were very well done by both fighters. Both used the opportunity to restate their positions and make a final attack on the other's position. I liked jkog08's summary it was excellent and was a great way finish.

I would in all honesty like to say this is a tie but a winner has to be chosen. So based on his slightly better use of sources and questions combined with an excellent closing summary this debate by a very slight margin goes to jkog08.

Thank you to both fighters; it was an awesome debate that was a privilege to judge.

An interesting topic and two skilled Fighters. This will be a good one. For the record, this is the first time I have read the debate and most of the judgment is provided as I read it, argument by argument.

jkrog08 starts out solidly, by establishing his intent and then providing a basic ypothetical that leads to a valid statistical question. He also says that there are many historical accounts. I anticipate these accounts will certainly not be ignored throughout this debate.

TheMythLives somes out of the gate citing statistics as well, albeit with much more specificity. Very convincing save for one point - it has happened before meaning that it is indeed possible for someone to pick the same electron 1,376 times in a row. However, he was much more thorough and the statistical point is at this point a tie in my opinion.

TheMythLives also brings into the argument the fact that the universe may just be a hologram. This is a confusing tactic as I am not sure that I see the relevance. Even if the universe is a hologram, it is still measurable and it is still inhabited (by us humans). So while an interesting side bar, I found its' inclusion as confusing and immaterial, making the following statement:

but I think the point has been made.




...not entirely true.

And jkrog08 pretty much answers those points and more. I found the arguement that given the combination of certain chemicals that life had to result to be on the interesting side, as well as the suggestion of agiogensis. Using TheMytheLives' electron analogy was also very effective.

TheMythLives offers a rebuttal to the credibility of Mr. Muncaster. Interesting and stron though I would have liked to have seen a source providing dates (this is ATS after all... ). He then continues to answer the SQ's. His first answer is solid but subjective, since the use of statistics and the proliferation of similar chemical situations as measured from Earth in other parts of the universe could suggest that it is simpler to assume multiple life forms have evolved. So the answer is subjective (and the reason for the debate... )
His answer to the second SQ is, again, confusing. His stance that he cannot know what the universe is but as a supporting piece of evidence to use measurable quantities of this 'unknown universe' to support an absolution (there is no other intelligent life) is contradictory. Indeed, if one does not know what the universe is then one cannot logically assert the components of the universe (one component being the evolution and existence of intelligent life forms). I think this stance, brought up originally by TheMythLives, is damaging to his position.

TheMythLives counters (pre-emptively?) The Drake Equation effectively. He is indeed correct that the slightest change in the factorization could lead to vastly different results and this was a brilliant tactic and conclusion which helped diffuse an argument I came into this debate expecting to see talked more about.

TheMythLives also hurts himself with the following statement:

Now mirror based life is just like us, accept opposite amino acids. Thats easy to understand and put forth, however, that life would need similar conditions that we have on earth.




...as jkrog08 has already demonstrated that (in our brief time of being able to measure chemical compositions of other systems) there are "similar conditions to Earth:

In addition to that there is no argument from nearly anyone that exosolar planets, probably similar to the conditions on Pre-Biotic Earth are quite common in just our galaxy alone.




TheMythLives also claims that Mars is too cold and as well that lifeforms formed under different conditions would die if they came to Earth. The former, in my opinion, is not so much relevant as it is but one aspect of the universe and tends to narrow the focus of the debate (a clever tactic if successfully employed) and the latter is fallacious as Humans have already proven that they could live in an environment in which conditions greatly differed from that of Earth.

jkrog08 correctly presents the definition of Occam's Razor and answers the SQ's successfully, in my opinion. Indeed, the answer to the third SQ focus's on one of the weakest points of TheMythLives' argument (which I am still confused as to its' use).

Also, the statement that "carbon is highly abundant in the universe" goes a long way to refute the supposition implied by TheMythLives, that alien life need be based on a different fundamental building block.

jkrog08 goes on to provide the promised examples of ancient evidence. I am looking for TheMythLives to answer that, while the evidence is compelling, it certainly does not necessitate as proof.

And TheMythLives does indeed provide alternate explanations for the photos...and successfully provides other examples of the Virgin Mary example.

TheMythLives then describes how probability cannot predict randomness and I think it is an interesting excercise in abstract logic. However, it is a philisophical point and one that does not incorporate, necessarily, observable and measurable traits. The universe has demonstrated patterns and we are still observing and analyzing new factors by which to increase the efficacy of our use of observed pattern to increase our comprehension. As such, while I think it was a potentially great tactic, I feel it comes across as a bit too late and reactive without enough applicative validity.

His first SQ was brilliant, however and I am looking forward to the answer, which was unexpected and interesting, however the use of conspiracy to counter a subjective question is indeed subjective and a bit on the weak side.

jkrog08 dodges the second SQ and as such fails to provide a direct answer, which is required by the debate rules. The question is indeed relevant as a means of travel could have been an indirect proof or non proof of the term "intelligent" contained in the debate topic. The answer to the third SQ is more than adequate.

jkrog also effectively refutes the randomness theory, in my opinion, and ends with a visual to reinforce his opening argument.

TheMythLives continues to show why subjective interpretation is exactly that, subjective and through action makes void the accusation of abusing symbolistic representation. But after that, his post comes across as tired and flat. The reiteration of randomness as not disproven does not interact with jkrog's statement that was brought from the talkorigins.org, in that molecules arrange themselves according to their chemical properties. That is a very relevant assertion towards the randomness theory and one that I find helps support jkrog's entire position.

He also cites Seti as a failure and a support of his position. I liked his brief look at the psychological aspect of humans not wanting to be alone and while I feel that it ultimately is exclusive of the debate premis I do note that it is yet another field utilized by the TheMythLives...which shows that he is all over the place and less focused.

The conclusions were a recount of the debate and as such I will not provide a play by play.

This was a brilliant and enjoyable debate. Both Fighters brought in sound arguments and rebuttals. However, I must choose one and I feel that jkrog08 provided the more consistent argument.

Congratulations to both Fighters!!