I will be taking the position that Intelligent Design is more reasonable than unintending naturalism

Originally posted by randomname
just like your car is proof that ford built it, the universe is proof God created it.

edit on 20-2-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)

Wow. Talk about blind belief.. O_o

Originally posted by mrphilosophias


BTW I'm not sure if anyone noticed but the anthropic principal got owned up there and I am curious who understands why the anthropic principle is essentially redundant misdirection in these questions of Origins and probability.

edit on 21-2-2011 by mrphilosophias because: ammended post

No its not. The anthropic principle is self-evident, and any attempt at disowning the principle through misguided dirges on probability, including calling multiplication of probabilities a "summation", do not in any way "own".

We have 50 billion stars in our galaxy, and to a good approximation there are about 100 billion galaxies. Whether the probability is 1 in 1 million, or 1 in 1 trillion, it doesn't matter. We have searched the equivalent of one grain of sand to that of the entire earth for life in the universe.

Order and structure also do not prove anything. Why would there be selection pressure against an ordered perception of the world? One of the ways evolution by natural selection is falsifiable is stumbling on a species whose simulation of the world approaches entropy.

Personal incredulity is not a reasonable basis for dissenting views.

I suggest you read "Fashionable Nonsense."

reply to post by mrphilosophias


You do realize that unintending naturalism doesn't mean atheism, right? It just means that there is a natural world in which things occur. It could be a natural world which was initially set off by an intelligent being.

Of course, do you have any evidence to support your claim? Nope.

At the very least, we can knock out planetary formation, stellar formation, biodiversity, and chemical synthesis without the need for an intelligent being. We even have a reasonable basis to say that life can arise naturally. What's your position?

You know what, I'll just address what you posted, as it's all old hat.


reply to post by mrphilosophias

Originally posted by mrphilosophias aka M.F. Alexander
A proof of Intention and Design in the Creation of a Universe Hospitable to Life

Failed right off the bat. The vast majority of our universe is inhospitable to life.

•A universe which is hospitable to life, and the conditions which were necessary for life to emerge from non-life, assumes a precise and particular co-occurrence of variables:

1.These variables are innumerable.

Name a few. And how can they be innumerable? Variables cannot be innumerable.

I mean, I can name off the top of my head that we can have a universe without the weak atomic force that functions in the exact same manner as the one we live in.

Science, cutting down creationist arguments since before we were born.

2.The probability of these variables being met and also co-occurring is consequently incalculable.

And unnecessary. Probability doesn't mean much when looking at events which already occurred.

3.Supposing knowledge of every variable, and the probability that each particular variable should occur, it would be theoretically possible to calculate the probability that the precise variables would exist and coincide, but the probability would be almost 0.

Citation needed. If the probability is incalculable, how did you arise that the probability would be almost zero? As my math teachers always told me: show your work.

Oh, and again, probability has no bearing in retrospective analysis. It occurred. As long as the probability exceeds 0 it doesn't matter in a retrospective analysis.

4.:.It is inconceivably improbable that all of the variables necessary for life to exist should precisely co-occur.

Why?

And again, what are these variables? How did you determine that they must be as they are for life to arise? Are you able to determine that no other forms of life could ever have arisen without the values of these undefined variables being otherwise?

Hell, how did you determine that the variables could be otherwise? How do you know that the variables aren't as they are simply because they cannot be otherwise?

•A universe exists which is hospitable and host to an abundant diversity of complex living organisms.

A universe exists which is mostly inhospitable to life. The only example we have of life in our universe exists within a certain distance from a stable stellar body. The vast majority of our solar system is inhospitable to life, not to mention the whole universe.

1.The variables required for such a Universe precisely coincide.

Such as? You keep mentioning these nebulous, undefined 'variables', please define a few.

2.Life emerged in a distant past present on planet Earth.
3.Life survived, reproduced, evolved, and thrived to the present where we find this diversity of complex life forms.

Alright, and why does this discount unintending naturalism?

•Every possible reality exists as a present moment.

Citation needed

•Every present moment is inextricably connected.

Citation needed

1.The present moment is the culmination of all past presents.
2.Every future moment is the culmination of all past presents.
3.Every past moment is the culmination of all past presents.
4.Every present moment depends upon the first moment.
5.Every possible moment culminates in a last moment. (
6.The first moment inevitably leads to every consecutive present moment and ultimately to a last moment.
7. The past moment in which life first emerged was the culmination of every moment which unfolded from the very first moment.
R14.) From the very first moment the events which unfolded culminated in the existence of a Universe with a precise co-occurrence of variables which are necessary for life to exist and emerge.

Citation needed

1.The Universe was either intended by an efficacious creative being or it was not intended.
2.If it was not intended then:
R4.) It is inconceivably improbable that all of the variables necessary for life to exist should precisely co-occur, absent intention.

Let's assume that it is inconceivably improbable (which it isn't, hell, you haven't even shown your work on that), that wouldn't matter. We're looking at it retrospectively (a word that I'm using way too much).

However:
R5.) The variables required for such a Universe precisely coincide.


Citation needed. Why is there only one such possible universe in which complex life could arise?

1.:. It is inconceivably more probable that any Universe which is hospitable to life was intended by an efficacious creative being, than that it happened absent intention or design.

You've not provided any demonstration of probability and you've not demonstrated how many universes which could support life are possible. You've not even demonstrated that the universe could exist in a manner different from how it exists now.

I'll admit, your argument has a structure, which is more than 95% of the posts here have. And I'll admit that it shows some basic understanding of certain ideas...but I've heard this argument before. William Lane Craig spouts it off so often that it's just sad to hear it again.

Copyright © 2011 Matthew F. Alexander

Read the terms of use of this website before you claim copyright.

Oh, and I'm obviously invoking the "Fair Use" clause of the DMCA to respond.

Random mutation? Sorry - I think a little bit higher of ourselves then that.

I believe that life is abundant - that the universe is full of it and its not random.

Life is inevitable - From the lowest cavern, the most toxic water source, or the most freezing climate.

What creates life in all its varieties, what is the pressing force of that flowing spiral that coaxes a seed to grow or a mutation to inspire itself into being?

The wave

My belief is that the center of our galaxy emits a wave of energy that is so powerful and despite what others may think - So intelligent - that it cannot help but arrange parts of itself into more complex, living organisms.

So now I wonder, are we truly the children unique to the earth, or are we the children of the galaxy?

When we begin to find planets that are capable of supporting us - it is my belief that people like us, will already be there, waiting to be found, or perhaps they have already found us?

Regardless of what science informs - I have strong feelings in this.

Until civilians play a role in the exploration of deep space - you will never be informed scientifically with the truth.

What do you feel is truth?

Life is inevitable,

reply to post by Gradius Maximus

Originally posted by Gradius Maximus
Random mutation? Sorry - I think a little bit higher of ourselves then that.

Then your pride is your downfall.

Quick note, evolution is the non-random selection of random mutations via external forces.

I believe that life is abundant - that the universe is full of it and its not random.

Well, believe what you want. Life may be abundant (we have no evidence either way for now), but there's no evidence to show that it is anything but random.

Life is inevitable - From the lowest cavern, the most toxic water source, or the most freezing climate.

Citation needed.

We know that life can adapt to the most extreme conditions, but there's no evidence to show that it can originate in every condition.

What creates life in all its varieties, what is the pressing force of that flowing spiral that coaxes a seed to grow or a mutation to inspire itself into being?

Um...genetics. Mutation doesn't inspire itself, it happens due to insertion, deletion, addition, and duplication.

The wave

My belief is that the center of our galaxy emits a wave of energy that is so powerful and despite what others may think - So intelligent - that it cannot help but arrange parts of itself into more complex, living organisms.

Um...what sort of energy? Heat? Light? Kinetic? Electromagnetism? Gravity?

...do you know what 'energy' means?

And where's your evidence for this?

So now I wonder, are we truly the children unique to the earth, or are we the children of the galaxy?

Life evolves to environment.

When we begin to find planets that are capable of supporting us - it is my belief that people like us, will already be there, waiting to be found, or perhaps they have already found us?

People like us? I'm sorry, but this shows ignorance of evolutionary theory. Life adapts to a great number of interrelated factors. Climate, competition, etc.

Regardless of what science informs - I have strong feelings in this.

So, regardless of what the facts of the matter are, you're going to go with irrational speculation?

Until civilians play a role in the exploration of deep space - you will never be informed scientifically with the truth.

I'm sorry, but what? Are you aware of what science is? It's a method by which we gather understanding of the universe. We can participate in science without exploring deep space...which probably won't be in anyone living right now's lifetime.

What do you feel is truth?

What I feel is irrelevant, what the data suggests is what matters.

Life is inevitable,

[citation needed]

I'm seeing an automaton for data correlation.

What are you going to do when new information or new facts rises up and completely replaces the truths you defend so adamantly?

Do you really think its unreasonable to assume that science cannot explain or divulge everything they know to the general public?

I dont need to write a paper with citations to debate what you believe, I only need to trust in mine.

Only when all the pieces are on the chess board can the real game really begin.

Right now, we only have a few pawns each. Lets wait til we know more.

reply to post by Gradius Maximus

Originally posted by Gradius Maximus
I'm seeing an automaton for data correlation.

Wow, an ad hominem attack. Original.

I'm not an automaton for data correlation, I'm someone who realizes that the only way we can learn about the physical world is through the scientific method. Since you're making claims about the physical world, I'd expect there to be data.

What are you going to do when new information or new facts rises up and completely replaces the truths you defend so adamantly?

When? You act like it's an inevitability. Where's your evidence that it is one?

Do you really think its unreasonable to assume that science cannot explain or divulge everything they know to the general public?

Science isn't a 'they'. And yes, it is unreasonable, considering the majority of research is done publicly and goes through the peer-review process. Why? Well, the majority of scientists are interested in generating interest for their findings and the best way to do that is to publish it publicly.

I dont need to write a paper with citations to debate what you believe, I only need to trust in mine.

Trust in your what? Trust in your gut feeling?
Trusting in your gut feeling is what got us to do all sorts of horrible things, whilst the scientific method has helped us achieve literal wonders.

Only when all the pieces are on the chess board can the real game really begin.

That would be great if this were chess. It isn't.

Right now, we only have a few pawns each. Lets wait til we know more.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to wait until humanity is omniscient.

I just dont see the purpose of debate when everyone is just playing a guessing game.

We dont have concrete explanations for anything, and every decade the facts of the previous are replaced by new discoveries. Science is all we have, and its foundation is constantly shifting, writhing and recycling.

Would it not make sense to keep an open mind as we move into this new era of technology and discovery that we have never seen before?

Now more then ever the public has the time, ability and education to say "What is that" and to demand the answers from those who control the flow of information, which yes, even you are subject to eating the scraps and wrestling with the rest of us for what is real.

I havent said my way or the highway, I've merely suggested that what we currently believe must surely follow the same trend of the past, movement towards a different understanding.

Now we get lots of self righteous folks defending theories because they wrote a thesis related to the subject so I can understand that you would stand beside what you know to be real, defending it to your grave.

I'm sure Democritus's vision of a flat planet was defended dearly by him - I wonder how he would have felt, if he were alive when we realized the world was indeed a sphere.

So I ask you sir, when the day comes where we are shown a universe teeming with life - Will you gracefully step down and accept a new truth? I think you will, but yes, we certainly need some facts.

But for now - I have a feeling - One that says we are part of a much larger family then we realize - calling this galaxy home.

Ever seen those playing card houses/structures??

So I can take a deck of cards and just throw them on the ground
and it will make a house of cards?

I could throw a deck of cards on the ground for a trillion years
and it will never make a house of cards.

reply to post by Gradius Maximus

Originally posted by Gradius Maximus
I just dont see the purpose of debate when everyone is just playing a guessing game.

Well, that 'guessing game' as you call it is what gave us such wonders as the computer that you're using and the internet as well as all the other technological wonders of the modern world. It added 20 years to the human lifespan since the 1930s. It improves lives for those who have access to its benefits.

We dont have concrete explanations for anything,

Really? Then how is it that we get computers to work? How is it that we are able to calculate within an infinitesimal margin of error where a space probe is going to land? How is it that we're able to calibrate our GPS satellites against general relativity?

and every decade the facts of the previous are replaced by new discoveries.

Citation needed. Last time I checked, we add, we don't tend to replace. I mean, I've been around for a couple of decades now, and F=ma is still a valid equation.

Science is all we have, and its foundation is constantly shifting, writhing and recycling.

Shifting? No, it's constantly being refined. It's refinement, not replacement. Evolution has been around for about 152 years. The basics of the theory, that accumulated change in a species over generations results in speciation, has not changed. The theory, that which explains the facts we know, has changed somewhat. Of course, it hasn't been radically changed, it's just been refined.

Would it not make sense to keep an open mind as we move into this new era of technology and discovery that we have never seen before?

Sure, but an open mind should be one that accepts thing through the filter of critical thinking, not just because someone on the internet who doesn't understand what 'energy' is claims that some mysterious sentient 'energy' is causing phenomenon which have observed and proven scientific basis.

Now more then ever the public has the time, ability and education to say "What is that" and to demand the answers from those who control the flow of information, which yes, even you are subject to eating the scraps and wrestling with the rest of us for what is real.

Citation. It is needed. You can't just claim that someone controls the flow of information without proving it. Last time I checked, the sum total of all scientific knowledge is available to anyone in the western world. I can access any scientific journal (though I would have to pay to access some), I can check through any scientific research.

I havent said my way or the highway, I've merely suggested that what we currently believe must surely follow the same trend of the past, movement towards a different understanding.

Except you seem to have a distorted view of how the past was. What we thought was true in the past was not founded in anything but the basest of observations, merely in speculation.

Now we get lots of self righteous folks defending theories because they wrote a thesis related to the subject so I can understand that you would stand beside what you know to be real, defending it to your grave.

Wrote a thesis? Huh? I'm not even a science student. And science is no place for such dogmatic thinking. A theory stands on the merits of evidence and that is it. It is no great democracy, it is a tyranny of evidence.

I'm just going to state upright, the sort of ignorance you're spreading is dangerous to human progress. You clearly don't understand how science works and you're trying to spread your lack of understanding to others.

I'm sure Democritus's vision of a flat planet was defended dearly by him - I wonder how he would have felt, if he were alive when we realized the world was indeed a sphere.

Well, Democritus didn't have access to much data. Hell, even the data he had access to was enough to infer the oblate spheroid shape of the Earth. But your comparison is false. We have access to data and we do not make assertions beyond the data we have access to.

Unless you can actually show how the millions of research papers relating to evolution are somehow in the same comparative state of reference as Democritus was to the shape of the Earth.

So I ask you sir, when the day comes where we are shown a universe teeming with life - Will you gracefully step down and accept a new truth? I think you will, but yes, we certainly need some facts.

I never said the universe isn't 'teeming' with life. Though 'teeming' must be a general term, as the vast majority of the universe is empty. I do accept that through natural processes life can arise in the appropriate conditions. Of course, you'd rather just knock down a strawman.

I'd rather make the statement that, based on our observations of how life diversifies, it is insane to think that life on other planets will look much like what we have here. Hell, it might not even fit into the most basic classifications of phylogeny.

But for now - I have a feeling - One that says we are part of a much larger family then we realize - calling this galaxy home.

You have a feeling? Well, I have a feeling that what you're saying is entirely baseless and that you'd rather lob accusations against me for practicing some basic critical thinking rather than hazard to attempt to prove your 'feeling'.

We're not talking about computers - We are talking about unproven theories here - Guessing games.

Like whats inside our planet - when we've never been there. Whats on the surface of the sun when we've never been there. Whats on the planets in other solar systems, when we've never been there! I hardly see how these concepts relate to the use of a computer, to which I am gratefully indebted to science, but excuse me if I dont bother with their theories about the unknown.

Often in science - things are indeed thrown away, when proven to be false. Surely I dont need to site these. But hey heres an example, leeches in medicine. They were replaced. So now with our current view of human beings as the only intelligent species in our universe, this is possibly nearing replacement.

There is a rift between you and I - You believe the most outstanding feats of science and discovery are in the public eye - I believe that they are hiding anything that would rock the boat, and research grants are only given to the public groups in subjects that are considered tame. Let me guess, Citation needed?

So we have someone not even a student of science up in arms over the possible unknowns of a mystical universe. Let me tell you something - A real scientist would say "We dont know". A google major and a reader of scientific journals says "THIS IS HOW IT IS"

I'm sharing my opinions, its not about ignorance for I consider myself very well informed from the same pools of information that you are drinking. I merely choose to go beyond the current safe place of understanding, and make theories according to how I feel - Since when is this a crime?

So using Democritus as an example and the earth as the scale. Do you think we have more information then he did, when we consider the vast scale of the universe in relation to how much data we have and how much we know to be true? No my friend, Democritus was closer to the truth by saying the world is flat - Then we are close to the truth by saying "We know whats out there in space" We have so much yet to learn...Come on, we're finding planets by looking for their shadows overtop of the light from the star - Thats nearly stone aged compared to going there and finding life.

So we can at least agree on humanoid figures developing on other planets - perhaps they may be darker skinned or have webbed toes, maybe even gills. But we can at least play it safe and assume for a difference in body shape, for we can at least look at ourselves and the diversity of the human beings on this planet alone. 7 foot tall to 3 foot tall, yet all of them considered human. So when we see a blue person, all of a sudden 'they' are the alien. Yet when we look at each other from black, yellow, red to white, we think we are the normal ones.

I am humble enough to say that my feelings are theories, I'm willing to let go of the obsession to facts and make hopes for the future. Through this practice, perhaps when we are surprised the shock will be less for me to accept the dawn of a new reality, or new friends.

So some will have us believe that life is purely biochemical. No spirit element to life.
Has science created life yet? Seeing as it's just chemicals then i assume it must have.
Our knowledge in chemical composition is very advanced, so take something relatively simple
like a blade of grass. Lets see science gather the ingredients and create some living grass in the lab.
Because, as far as i am concerned, science needs to demonstrate what it claims.
I claim that life comes from life. Not inanimate chemicals.

reply to post by Gradius Maximus

Originally posted by Gradius Maximus
We're not talking about computers - We are talking about unproven theories here - Guessing games.

Do you understand what the word "theory" means? A theory is a description of a fact. That which is theory is fact.

Theory of evolution? That's a fact.
Big Bang theory? That's a fact.
Circuit theory? That's a fact.
Germ theory? That's a fact.
Cell theory? That's a fact.

Please, demonstrate one of these 'unproven theories'.

Like whats inside our planet - when we've never been there.

You don't have to go somewhere to determine what's there. Of course, you're just highlighting that you are arguing from ignorance. You don't know how we determine what is within our planet, so it must be wrong because you don't understand and we've never been there.

We have methods for determining what is within our planet. Hell, some of the stuff on the outer most layer actually comes out every so often.

Whats on the surface of the sun when we've never been there.

Again, arguing from ignorance. We have methods for determining what the surface composition of the sun is. We understand the fundamentals of how the sun works and we actually applied that knowledge to make the most terrible and destructive weapon in history, the fusion bomb. And we're trying to apply the knowledge more constructively by building our own tiny sun for a fusion reactor.

Whats on the planets in other solar systems, when we've never been there!

Again, we have means of determining what's on those planets, though those statements are made based upon measurements. And it's not like we're saying "They have a rock shaped like the letter J", we're saying that there is a general chemical composition.

I hardly see how these concepts relate to the use of a computer, to which I am gratefully indebted to science, but excuse me if I dont bother with their theories about the unknown.

These things aren't unknown to scientists, they're merely unknown to you. Do not confuse that which you do not know with that which is unknown.

Often in science - things are indeed thrown away, when proven to be false.

When was the last time?

Surely I dont need to site these.

Sure you do. Please give me an example of a scientific idea that was thrown away.

But hey heres an example, leeches in medicine. They were replaced.

That wasn't science. That was pre-scientific medicinal practice.

So now with our current view of human beings as the only intelligent species in our universe, this is possibly nearing replacement.

Nobody is claiming that human beings are the only intelligent species in the universe, they're claiming that we're the only known intelligent beings in the universe. Actually, I take that back. Some people are pushing to classify dolphins, certain apes, and certain octopuses as intelligent beings as well, though not as intelligent as ourselves.

There's the push to create machines that are as intelligent as we are.

You're beating this straw man to death.

There is a rift between you and I - You believe the most outstanding feats of science and discovery are in the public eye

Well, there isn't any evidence otherwise. Granted, I'm sure there are some specific engineering feats that some military contracts require to be covered up for a while, though nothing too incredible. Why? Well, warfare is all well and good, but any nationstate worth its salt realizes the incredibly power of economic warfare. Any nation that developed something outstanding would capitalize on it.

- I believe that they are hiding anything that would rock the boat, and research grants are only given to the public groups in subjects that are considered tame. Let me guess, Citation needed?

Of course. You're speculating. Any claim presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

And research grants aren't given to tame ideas. Microchips in brains, attempts at constructing artificial life, growing meat in vats...some pretty crazy stuff is being researched.

So we have someone not even a student of science up in arms over the possible unknowns of a mystical universe.

I'm not a student of science, but I am a lover of it. I am a practitioner and beneficiary of science.

And you're claiming the universe is mystical? Again citation needed. What is mystical about the universe? Seems quite physical to me.

Let me tell you something - A real scientist would say "We dont know".

No, a real scientist would say "We don't know everything...yet. We're working on it. We do know these things: (insert general list of human knowledge)."

Do you want to know how I know this? I was raised by a real scientist. My father is a physicist with patents and first-tier peer-reviewed papers to his name.

A google major and a reader of scientific journals says "THIS IS HOW IT IS"

Wow, a personal insult. I'm hurt. No, wait...I'm happy. This means you don't have an argument. Hell, you're not even attacking me, you're attacking another straw man. You must take down armies of these things in your spare time.

I say "This is what best describes the facts"

I'm sharing my opinions,

And your insults.

its not about ignorance for I consider myself very well informed from the same pools of information that you are drinking.

You really aren't. You demonstrated an ignorance of the terms 'energy' and 'theory'. You demonstrate further ignorance of the word 'theory' below.

I merely choose to go beyond the current safe place of understanding, and make theories according to how I feel

The term you should use there isn't theories. Hypotheses or speculations would be more appropriate.

You are basically spitting in the face of the practice that gave you the long life and luxuries of the modern world with that statement. Science isn't about a 'safe place of understanding', it's about the only place of understanding we can attain with the facts at hand. Scientists will make a hypothesis about something we don't have enough understanding of, they might even defend it, but they'll be the first to tell you if they're wrong once the data comes around.

You, on the other hand, actually contradict the facts of science that benefit your life for the sake of your 'feelings'. This is a regressive practice. This is what pre-scientific thinking is like. I choose to think scientifically.

- Since when is this a crime?

Never said it was. It is harmful though.

So using Democritus as an example and the earth as the scale.

You do realize that there were contemporaries of Democritus who disagreed with him, right? Hell, a guy even calculated the circumference of the Earth with quite a bit of certainty within a hundred years of his life.

Do you think we have more information then he did, when we consider the vast scale of the universe in relation to how much data we have and how much we know to be true?

I have more information on my bookshelf than Democritus had access to in his lifetime. That's excluding all the fiction and history books. Actually, I'm sure some of my fiction books have more scientific information in them than he had access to. Hell, I could awe Newton with my understanding of the universe. I know the solution to a problem that he gave up on (the problem of calculating the interaction of gravity between more than 2 bodies).

I, as a relatively aware layperson, have more scientific understanding of the universe than a great of his time like Democritus had access to.

Of course we have access to far more information than we did. And you do realize that all data isn't created equally, right?

F = ma

This is one of the most important pieces of data in the universe. Right there. It's so small and so simple. It's an incredibly applicable equation.

E = mc^2

Again, so simple. So elegant, so much more useful than the gigabytes of files that are on most people's computers right now.

The most useful equations in physics with an explanation of their use can be stored as a book, this data is infinitely more important than the terabytes of data that the exact position of every grain of sand on every beach on the Earth would require to catalog.

No my friend, Democritus was closer to the truth by saying the world is flat - Then we are close to the truth by saying "We know whats out there in space"

Again, a straw man and a failed argument. You started with premise A and came to conclusion C without bothering to go through the effort of presenting logical connection B.

Nobody is saying 'we know what's out there in space', they're saying "We have a pretty good idea of what to expect, but we hope to be surprised"

We have so much yet to learn...Come on, we're finding planets by looking for their shadows overtop of the light from the star - Thats nearly stone aged compared to going there and finding life.

Considering that going there would require just a small violation of the laws of physics...

So we can at least agree on humanoid figures developing on other planets

Nope. Why would a world with billions of years of entirely different evolutionary history develop bipedal anatomies?

- perhaps they may be darker skinned or have webbed toes, maybe even gills.

Darker skinned? We have a damn wide range of skin tones, and we get incredibly dark.

And I have relatively webbed fingers and toes.

And what use would a water-breathing creature have for a bipedal anatomy? Bipedal anatomies are horrible for moving through water. It's why the best human swimmer in history can't even match an average dolphin on a bad day.

But we can at least play it safe and assume for a difference in body shape, for we can at least look at ourselves and the diversity of the human beings on this planet alone. 7 foot tall to 3 foot tall, yet all of them considered human.

I predict an ignorance of taxonomy and genetics coming up...

You do realize that the factor for determining what is and isn't human is interfertility, right? If I can produce fertile offspring with it, it's human (and female).

So when we see a blue person, all of a sudden 'they' are the alien. Yet when we look at each other from black, yellow, red to white, we think we are the normal ones.

No...just...so...I don't know where to start. So much is wrong with that. If we happened across something that looked exactly like us but somehow happened to be blue, that would mean there was at least a small amount of genetic variance. We would have to look beyond such a superficial factor and just attempt to sequence the genetic code of these blue people before we could determine whether or not they're the same species.

I am humble enough to say that my feelings are theories,

Yet another demonstration of ignorance of the word 'theory'. Your feelings are unsupported conjectures, not theories. Evolution? That's a theory. Circuits? That's the theory that allows us to have this conversation.

I'm willing to let go of the obsession to facts and make hopes for the future.

That 'obsession to facts' helps people live longer, healthier lives with greater access to knowledge than at any point in human history.

Through this practice, perhaps when we are surprised the shock will be less for me to accept the dawn of a new reality, or new friends.

Nobody in our lifetimes is ever going to engage in interstellar travel. That's something I can guarantee with almost 100% certainty.

Why? Well, where would you get the energy to travel such vast distances? The furthest we've ever sent something is the edge of our solar system, Voyager 1. We're not likely to make the leap from sending a relatively small chunk of metal to the outskirts of our solar system to travelling the great void between solar systems in large, human-crewed vehicles in a single lifetime.

I'm looking forward to the first crewed missions to Mars.

reply to post by bargoose

Originally posted by bargoose
So some will have us believe that life is purely biochemical.

That's because we have evidence that life exists purely biochemically.

No spirit element to life.

There's no evidence of the 'spirit element' of life.

Has science created life yet?

*facepalm*

Not yet. We're actually working on it.

Seeing as it's just chemicals then i assume it must have.

Well, the sun is just chemicals too. We haven't managed to reproduce a self-sustaining fusion reaction yet.

Hell, a planet is just chemicals too. Haven't managed one of those either.

You do realize that the task of creating life from scratch is a bit difficult, right? And that nobody is claiming that life being biochemical makes it easy to recreate.

Odd thing though, we're working on it. And we're making great strides.

Our knowledge in chemical composition is very advanced, so take something relatively simple like a blade of grass.

Relatively simple. With emphasis on relatively. We did just happen to sequence the genome of a wild grass last year.

Mockler and his colleagues targeted Brachypodium because of its small size and genomic simplicity. Standing at around eight inches tall at maturity, Brachypodium is much more suited for study in the lab than wild grasses like switchgrass, which can grow up to ten feet tall. Its genome is also relatively small and simple, consisting of only 270 million base pairs.

Emphasis added, source.

Do you realize how incredibly difficult that is?

Lets see science gather the ingredients and create some living grass in the lab.

The current inability of science to produce life artificially doesn't prove your point.

Because, as far as i am concerned, science needs to demonstrate what it claims.

It's working on it.

I claim that life comes from life. Not inanimate chemicals.

Well, life does come from life. It consists of chemicals. In fact, life is defined as a self-replicating, self-contained structure of chemicals.

Of course, as has been repeated ad nauseum in another thread, the inability of scientists to do something right now doesn't mean that it is impossible for them to do it in the future or for it to occur in nature. Your argument, she is flawed.

reply to post by hillynilly


False analogy. Decks of cards don't reproduce with selection favoring positive traits towards a house of cards after millions of attempts.

Why is it that the same ignorant arguments are used over and over and over by those who reject simple scientific fact?

Anyone given any thought that all those galaxies out there don't exist at all. We can't touch them or get to them so why should we believe that they exist at all. When the Hubble telescope exposed the so called earliest galaxies from the deep space exposure I have to ask are they there.

The mysterious dark matter and dark energy could be nothing more than a substrate that everything we see is attached similar to that used in electronics. Are we just playing the game.

reply to post by majestictwo

Originally posted by majestictwo
Anyone given any thought that all those galaxies out there don't exist at all.

Um...no.

We can't touch them or get to them so why should we believe that they exist at all.

Because we are touching them...indirectly. Light from those galaxies is touching our instruments.

When the Hubble telescope exposed the so called earliest galaxies from the deep space exposure I have to ask are they there.

Well, they might not be there anymore, but they were once there. And we can actually calculate how long it took for the light from them to arrive to our instruments, so we can calculate the chances of the stars within the galaxies still existing.

There are some galaxies that we have been observing longer than the amount of time it takes for the light to reach us.

The mysterious dark matter and dark energy could be nothing more than a substrate that everything we see is attached similar to that used in electronics. Are we just playing the game.

Wow...that doesn't make any sense at all. How would that work?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Well I guess I'm thinking along the lines of the holographic world theory. If indeed we were just a projection lets say similar to the holographic theory and again theorising that the difference between holography and reality is matter and energy. Then there would be no need for the things we cannot touch to be physically there at all.

How do you know light from those galaxies is touching our instruments this may not be the case at all. Many people presume they are real and I'm thinking that you do also but you may not be. You may simply be a product of some intelligence that controls this universe. That's why I bring up the dark mater and energy it could be the substrate of all we know - kinda like the silicon in your monitor (dark matter) there that projects images to you and the energy (dark energy) behind it to do so. Invisible but necessary for the illusion.

reply to post by randomname


1. The universe always existed.
2. The universe created itself from nothing.
3. The universe was created.

There is no other option to choose from. Science and physics prove options 1 and 2 are impossible.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by randomname

 

1. The universe always existed.
2. The universe created itself from nothing.
3. The universe was created.

There is no other option to choose from.

Excluded middle. In this case it's the middle of a triangle.

1a: That which makes up the universe has always existed, though the universe in its present form hasn't.
1b: The universe is continually cycling through expansion and deflation.
1c: The universe is continually cycling through expansion,stagnation, and reexpansion (sort of a mindboggler, but an interesting one, I can go into depth on it).

3a: The universe was an unintended cause of natural or supernatural events.

Now, I've repeatedly informed you that nobody but the straw men that some creationists make claims that position.

Science and physics prove options 1 and 2 are impossible.

1a isn't impossible, and of course 2 is impossible, nobody claims it.