to the atheists on the board

Quote from dgabriel:

The goal in using those calculations? To promote the religious agenda maybe? I did not say that Shoeshineboy wants to trick us into being beleivers, just that his arguments are the same as those of the religious right that have a political-theocratic agenda.
Even 400 years ago, the church did not expect Galileo to really disbelieve his beliefs, but to obliterate them from public consideration.
More...

I am definitely not trying to "trick" anyone and, as far as I know, my numbers are solid.

And for the record, I have retracted a few of my numbers on the 666 thread. If they're wrong, I'm willing to back down.

Again, these parameters were all discovered by astronomers and as we all know astronomers are not by any stretch of the imagination 100% theistic.

As far as I know, these numbers apply unless you want to talk about weird, sci fi energy based life or something, fine. But if you're talking about hard science, i.e. carbon based life, then these parameters hold.

Keep in mind that carbon is the only molecule - silicon can only be strung together for only about 100 molecules - that is capable of information storage other than boron, which is extremely rare.

The only possible argument that I can see with the #s is 1) statistical dependencies (and I think that is a weak argument at best) and 2) minor tweaking of each factor.

I genuinely believe neither #1 or #2 changes this fact, that is that carbon-based life in our universe is ultra unlikely.
 
I genuinely believe neither #1 or #2 changes this fact, that is that carbon-based life in our universe is ultra unlikely.

Read what you just said several times :D

You cant see the forest through the trees shoe.

Carbon based life in our universe is 100% likely because
IT ALREADY HAPPENED.

You are simply rejecting reality here beyond belief.


Once again I will state that all these designer arguments are
nothing more than a weak hypothesis WITH ZERO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.

They are no better than my hypothesis that yesterdays big
dump I took created the universe.

Without a SHRED of evidence to support this hypothesis it
is nothing more than words which carry NO weight.

UNLIKE scientific hypothesis and theories which DO have
supporting evidence, models, etc, which can be verified, tested, and falsified.

The god arguments stand apart in a completely different domain.
The domain of fairy tales. They do not even remotely qualify as
scientific by an means.


peace

axeman



Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

I am definitely not trying to "trick" anyone and, as far as I know, my numbers are solid.

And for the record, I have retracted a few of my numbers on the 666 thread. If they're wrong, I'm willing to back down.

Again, these parameters were all discovered by astronomers and as we all know astronomers are not by any stretch of the imagination 100% theistic.

As far as I know, these numbers apply unless you want to talk about weird, sci fi energy based life or something, fine. But if you're talking about hard science, i.e. carbon based life, then these parameters hold.

Keep in mind that carbon is the only molecule - silicon can only be strung together for only about 100 molecules - that is capable of information storage other than boron, which is extremely rare.

The only possible argument that I can see with the #s is 1) statistical dependencies (and I think that is a weak argument at best) and 2) minor tweaking of each factor.

I genuinely believe neither #1 or #2 changes this fact, that is that carbon-based life in our universe is ultra unlikely.
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

I genuinely believe neither #1 or #2 changes this fact, that is that carbon-based life in our universe is ultra unlikely.

Read what you just said several times :D

You cant see the forest through the trees shoe.

...........


UNLIKE scientific hypothesis and theories which DO have
supporting evidence, models, etc, which can be verified, tested, and falsified.

The god arguments stand apart in a completely different domain.
The domain of fairy tales. They do not even remotely qualify as
scientific by an means.
More...

Actually, Axe, the context of what I was saying was simply this: "it is unlikely (very unlikely in my opinion) that there will be life anywhere else in the unverse based on necessary advanced life property requirements."

I wasn't using it as an argument for theism, etc.

Are you arguing that it is likely they'll find life in the universe?
 
I don't see what the big deal about the numbers are.

Take the magnetic field parameter:

All I'm saying is that the magnetic field of a planet must be within a reasonable range. If you have too strong of a field, you'll have brutal emag storms; if you have too low of a field, the planet receives inadequate protection from radiation.

Again, I don't see what it is so objectionable about applying a reasonable probability to this parameter, i.e. % of planets/stars with this situation, and then estimating the likelihood of an advanced life planet...
 
The problem is that you are making MASSIVE assumptions
on what kinds of life can exist.

For example... there are certain plants which exist only at
the top of Mt. Kilimanjaro where no other plant can survive
due to the additional radiation from the sun. Thin atmosphere.

They have adopted to this in several ways and have no
problem surviving these conditions.


One day we may find life on a planet with a crazy magnet field
that OUR kind of life could not survive in.

But obviously, life which EVOLVES in such a magnetic field
has the ability to survive in it.

Im not arguing for or against life elsewhere in the universe.
I am honest enough to admit that I have NO WHERE NEAR
enough data to even begin computing the probability of this.

Life COULD evolve elsewhere in the universe in ways no human
has ever even considered, and in environments no human
would even consider life evolving even remotely possible.

We simply dont know.

Before you can even begin calculating any sort of probability
you have to make a TON of assumptions, as you have.


peace

axeman




Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

I don't see what the big deal about the numbers are.

Take the magnetic field parameter:

All I'm saying is that the magnetic field of a planet must be within a reasonable range. If you have too strong of a field, you'll have brutal emag storms; if you have too low of a field, the planet receives inadequate protection from radiation.

Again, I don't see what it is so objectionable about applying a reasonable probability to this parameter, i.e. % of planets/stars with this situation, and then estimating the likelihood of an advanced life planet...
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

The problem is that you are making MASSIVE assumptions
on what kinds of life can exist.

................

Im not arguing for or against life elsewhere in the universe.
I am honest enough to admit that I have NO WHERE NEAR
enough data to even begin computing the probability of this.

Life COULD evolve elsewhere in the universe in ways no human
has ever even considered, and in environments no human
would even consider life evolving even remotely possible.

We simply dont know.
More...

I think you’re underestimating the importance of our magnetic field. As you know, I described the “miracle” of the lunar event in a previous thread. One very fortunate result of the collision of the Mars-sized planet with the Earth is the presence of the Earth's large and heavy metallic core which left us with the highest density of any of the planets in our Solar System.

This large nickel-iron core is responsible for our large magnetic field which is named the Van-Allen radiation shield. It is this shield which protects the Earth from radiation bombardment.

If this shield were not present, advanced life would simply not be possible on the Earth. Mercury is the other planet to have any significant magnetic field and it is less than 1% of our own. Mars’ for example is < .1% of earth’s.
 
But let's go to another example if you won’t accept that one:

Axial tilt. The way I see it there's no argument over this one. Surface temperatures would be much brutal if axial tilt was adjusted significantly either way.

Surely you’re not arguing that advanced life can survive on a planet with astronomical temperatures?
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

I agree with you to a certain extent, since there will always be an element of faith in belief.

However, I think that the separation is not as black and white as you say. I love this quote from agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow talking about the discovery of the COBE radiation:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has a scaled the nation of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

There are many areas where the two meet, especially where the teleological aspects of life and the cosmos can be debated and discussed.
More...

And how many theologians discovered the computer, space flight, vaccinations, or genetic engineering? It's a pithy little saying but it's completely wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top