Intelligent Design vs the Methodological Naturalism standard for science

[leibowde84]

I was specifically referring to how the study of ancient megalithic structures around the globe have been studied by professionals with degrees, even among them one or two professors. These have clearly demonstrated that high technology in their making was evident from the artifacts studies, and as mentioned water marks on the Spinx that clearly shows our present taught history to be wrong, that it is obvious we are dealing with an ancient high technological civilization now in ruins and long forgotten. Much more than this was seen to be suppressed by the powers that be.

I'm sorry, but none of this is true. These are mere conspiracy theories. No one would have any reason to create the vast amount of evidence available that proves the Egyptians were not as advanced as you suggest.

That being said, I am always open to being wrong. Can you provide any evidence from reputable sources (educational institutions, academic journals, scientific studies, archeological articles from experts who prove the claims you make here, etc.)?

 

[Darkstorn]

I claim that the Drake equation tells what the probability formula is of us or a random population in space being created by aliens.

While it is a probability formula, several of its factors are highly conjectural and it cannot be used to draw a conclusion like the one you are supposing.

This probability is based on several factors and although we are nowhere near estimating some or even all of them if we had these figures the Drake equation would be correct.

Define correct. In what context? How is it correct?

And while the equation might be correct, it doesn't actually correlate to reality. This is very important.

The probability is very low.

And in actual real life, instead of on paper, it's actually much lower. Because not only are several of the factors conjectural, there are also more factors than it takes into account.

However it doesn't factor in the possibility that the average length of a civilization might not relate to the highest timeframes of civilizations.

Trust me, that's not the only problem in defining whether or not it's rational to believe in creator "Aliens" using an equation not designed to answer such questions.

If this is the case these civilizations might be able to colonize far more civilizations in their lifetime.

Yes, but it assumes that there are such civilizations to begin with. That's part of the conjectural element of the equation. You cannot use it to draw your conclusions. But you did anyway.

Now that I've answered you, you may accept or reject this, explain why and you may also tell me what you think of the possibility of perpetual extra-terrestrial creation. You may type anything else but if you annoy me I go away.

I reject your conclusions because they are not based on logic, but faith and belief.

But i think it's just as possible as the magical pixies i was talking about. Your scenario is possible: But it is not rational based on all available evidence to believe that it IS the case. Nor is it rational to make the conclusions you did from the equation.

I think you are suffering from the same type of confirmation bias as every other ID proponent.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree that some things are simply beyond the ken of today's science.
For example, the giraffe's long neck was long explained away by Lamarck and Darwin according to the speculative notions of evolutionary theory as they understood it. Today, we are able to look back and realize that Lamarck and Darwin were engaged in speculation when they offered their explanations for the long necks of giraffes - an explanation that was accepted as simply being "obvious".

I do not believe that Darwin engaged in speculation in the same way Lamarck did. Darwin's conclusions were based on sound objective observations in the field, and he recognized the limits of his knowledge and made predictions about the future evidence that would confirm the theory, which were born out.

The logical question becomes: Is there is a test for intelligent design that we just haven't thought of yet? If I understand you correctly, you are not merely saying that we do not have such a test, but that such a test cannot exist (under the accepted standards of science, of course) because intelligent design requires the supernatural (which by definition precludes a natural explanation). I have to disagree with you (not because your conclusion isn't correct), but because things long thought to be supernatural have on occasion been found to have completely natural explanations (such as the "invisible" or "magical" electromagnetic forces). In other words, although we may accept that intelligent design is a supernatural explanation and therefore speculation (not science), there is no way to know that the so-called "supernatural" aspects of intelligent design theory won't one day have natural explanations and thereby fall into the realm of science some day.

Considering possibilities of future boundaries between the natural and supernatural is possible, but this is very much speculation, which I cannot deal with in this thread except that I will acknowledge the possibility.

 

[Grandliseur]

Can you provide any evidence from reputable sources (educational institutions, academic journals, scientific studies, archeological articles from experts who prove the claims you make here, etc.)?

This is exactly the problem I referred to in my initial post. When you have highly educated people in their field, professors, and the like, people who have studied engineering and run businesses in this field showing and demonstrating before your own eyes what is true, and as it happens that I myself have been educated in factory type machinery, lathes, and what not, so that I can see what is true, I know how the hardness of metal affects the cutting speed, and the tools used, it irritates me to high heaven when pencil pushers who have no knowledge of how to work materials except for a keyboard, a pencil, and a spreadsheet, do not pay attention to such professionals.

Who does a professor of Archaeology take his Mercedes to for repair? His own office, or the nearby repair shop where they know how to fix modern cars! You use the bloody experts that are needed for a job, and don't ask a physicists to prepare your restaurant meal to be superb. When then highly educated engineers speak out on the tool marks and units they examine, it is wrong for these bloody pencil pushers to just ignore this and ascribe the workings to shepherds who just had hammers and copper tools.

There is no reason for idiocy, but it exists on a grand scale in these areas.

 

[Milton Platt]

science has no answers on how Big Bang came about, what was before BB, how life originated , what is consciousness, so, ID has advantage.

"god did it" is not an answer

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If so, my magical pixies hypothesis is also a "theory."

If it's discovered that they're intelligent engineers, could be.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is why it irritates me when the very clear evidence of high tech machinery having been used in ancient times is disregarded. That is also why I can see clearly what is being said about it when we are shown these things. Most people have no idea to what degree modern machines work, their tolerances, limits, drill speed, the way the hardness of the object, metal, affects how we work with it.

Because evidence of high technology machinery in ancient times has not been found..
Please present the evidence.

Besides it is not the topic of the thread,

 

[Darkstorn]

If it's discovered that they're intelligent engineers, could be.

Remind me, when was it discovered that your favored deity is an intelligent engineer? I mean, in any more tangible way than i showed you how my magical pixies are discovered as intelligent engineers.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Ditto. I could tear apart your theory too. When the odds are low neither are good theories. But how many atheist intelligent designers have you met? At least give me the credit for that.

Go ahead and expound on these problems about the Drake equation if you like. I have so far replied to all your posts. You do not annoy me so I will stay here and try to resolve this with you.

"While it is a probability formula, several of its factors are highly conjectural and it cannot be used to draw a conclusion like the one you are supposing."

I didn't say it wasn't.

"Define correct. In what context? How is it correct?

And while the equation might be correct, it doesn't actually correlate to reality. This is very important."

In the sense of an engineering problem.

"And in actual real life, instead of on paper, it's actually much lower. Because not only are several of the factors conjectural, there are also more factors than it takes into account."

How do you know if the probability is higher or lower than the estimated 1%?

"Trust me, that's not the only problem in defining whether or not it's rational to believe in creator "Aliens" using an equation not designed to answer such questions."

Go on; why is the methodology wrong in more ways than have been pointed out?

"Yes, but it assumes that there are more than one civilization to begin with. That's part of the conjectural element of the equation. You cannot use it to draw your conclusions. But you did anyway."

Life could have developed in a much bigger playpen and then been able to spread out to more civilizations of creation... once there is one civilization the formula may be applied, or say why not?

"I reject your conclusions because they are not based on logic, but faith and belief.

But i think it's just as possible as the magical pixies i was talking about. Your scenario is possible: But it is not rational based on all available evidence to believe that it IS the case. Nor is it rational to make the conclusions you did from the equation.

I think you are suffering from the same type of confirmation bias as every other ID proponent. "

What faith and belief? I want to know which one is right too! What confirmation bias? I am above all an objectivist and have changed my opinions several times on these forums.

 

[Grandliseur]

Sorry, but you are telling the story wrong. The issue is why the Sphinx has eroded as much as it has. One hypothesis put forward is that it was older and thereby subject to a different climate (wetter).

Contrary to your presentation, this has been debated extensively in the scientific community. Sphinx water erosion hypothesis - Wikipedia

I am happy somebody is beginning to take notice. It still seems that the Egyptian authorities don't like this. I'll read your article now.

The engineering observations regarding the high tech tools that have been employed in the makings of many surviving units, I suppose is still not recognized by any.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Oh and I figured out how to quote your individual comments.

 

[Grandliseur]

Because evidence of high technology machinery in ancient times has not been found..
Please present the evidence.

Besides it is not the topic of the thread,

In a certain way, it is part of the topic since if our present methodology is so flawed that it cannot recognize a chicken egg when it sees one - clear machinery markings and needs for high tech machinery to make things - then its value comes into serious question. "Methodological Naturalism standard for science" becomes a standard of a country club.

But, then I don't share the admiration others have for certain of our sciences that do not have to do with our daily lives, and even these keep demonstrating their poor standards.

 

[Darkstorn]

Oh and I figured out how to quote your individual comments.

Whenever i try to reply to you with the LONG post i wrote i get a message saying that i'm blocked. Anyway, i've said enough about the problems regarding you and your conclusions from an equation. I'm NOT writing it all over again.

"Criticism related to the Drake equation focuses not on the equation itself, but on the fact that the estimated values for several of its factors are highly conjectural, the combined effect being that the uncertainty associated with any derived value is so large that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions."

Your conclusion is simply not rational. You are ignoring the point of the equation.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Be back in an hour!

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm sorry but the other hypothesis has a chance next to zero. You not only have to get the DNA, but the RNA proteins and interlinking mechanisms as well. I'm riding the Drake Equation pony so far because it is still much more likely even by very conservative estimates. If the Drake equation gives a chance of 0.01% for instance, then some beings might just have lasted long enough to do it 10,000 times. (Yes I know that doesn't equal 1). But if we were created by chance, we have to have a great many wasted Earths. The number is too high! How would you explain consciousness this way?

The factors are inaccurate but the Drake equation itself is based on sound principles of probability.

Based on sound principles of probability does not change the fact that the application of the Drake equation involves a great deal of conjecture, and often assumptions of unknowns,

Note to add: In graduate school I took several courses in statistics, and realized 'the math does not lie, but frequently the manipulation of the variables can make statisticians liars.

 

[shunyadragon]

In a certain way, it is part of the topic since if our present methodology is so flawed that it cannot recognize a chicken egg when it sees one - clear machinery markings and needs for high tech machinery to make things - then its value comes into serious question. "Methodological Naturalism standard for science" becomes a standard of a country club.

But, then I don't share the admiration others have for certain of our sciences that do not have to do with our daily lives, and even these keep demonstrating their poor standards.

No it is not in reality on topic, though making claims without objective evidence is a problem for 'Intelligent Design' and the claim of a high level of technology in ancient civilizations.

Because evidence of high technology machinery in ancient times has not been found..
Please present the evidence.

I do not accept 'arguments from ignorance.'
Still waiting . . .

 

[robocop (actually)]

Whenever i try to reply to you with the LONG post i wrote i get a message saying that i'm blocked. Anyway, i've said enough about the problems regarding you and your conclusions from an equation. I'm NOT writing it all over again.

"Criticism related to the Drake equation focuses not on the equation itself, but on the fact that the estimated values for several of its factors are highly conjectural, the combined effect being that the uncertainty associated with any derived value is so large that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions."

Your conclusion is simply not rational. You are ignoring the point of the equation.

Sorry bro! If you are getting discriminated against I should not talk to you because then you are at an unfair disadvantage. I want to be fair.

Based on sound principles of probability does not change the fact that the application of the Drake equation involves a great deal of conjecture, and often assumptions of unknowns,

Note to add: In graduate school I took several courses in statistics, and realized 'the math does not lie, but frequently the manipulation of the variables can make statisticians liars.

I'm not saying otherwise. Let me repeat my position. I feel that because of all the mechanisms besides just RNA or DNA involved in chance, this probability is very, very, very low. The application of the Drake eq. might be low too it might turn out, but we don't need to shoot ourselves in the foot when looking for an explanation by saying "Oh, it must be just impossibly low." It could be lower than 1%. It could be higher than 1%. And I'm sure it's almost certainly much different than 1%.

But two things: (1) I think it's currently better and (2) I think the beautiful thing about science is that it's very much a moving target and we settle on how close we are to different hypotheses only over much "scientific faith," time and effort.

By "scientific faith", I mean accepting things not to be right, figuring out what we don't need, searching for possible explanations and coming up with a shiny new formula.

Those parameters will eventually be narrowed down, and both sides will have their probability solidified.

Note: I have a Master's in Mathematics.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Einstein said, "Why were another seven years required for the construction of the general theory of relativity? The main reason lies in the fact that it is not so easy to free oneself from the idea that coordinates must have an immediate metrical meaning." Abductive reasoning, over time, will help us answer and agree on these questions.

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry bro! If you are getting discriminated against I should not talk to you because then you are at an unfair disadvantage. I want to be fair.



I'm not saying otherwise. Let me repeat my position. I feel that because of all the mechanisms besides just RNA or DNA involved in chance, this probability is very, very, very low. The application of the Drake eq. might be low too it might turn out, but we don't need to shoot ourselves in the foot when looking for an explanation by saying "Oh, it must be just impossibly low." It could be lower than 1%. It could be higher than 1%. And I'm sure it's almost certainly much different than 1%.

Have you done any modeling or other analysis to justify this? Just how deeply have you modeled the chemistry?

But two things: (1) I think it's currently better and (2) I think the beautiful thing about science is that it's very much a moving target and we settle on how close we are to different hypotheses only over much "scientific faith," time and effort.

By "scientific faith", I mean accepting things not to be right, figuring out what we don't need, searching for possible explanations and coming up with a shiny new formula.

Those parameters will eventually be narrowed down, and both sides will have their probability solidified.

The Drake equation is accurate as it is usually written. It tells the likelihood of intelligent life (not life that created us). There are several points where the uncertainty is very large, though. But when I was young, we didn't know of any planets outside the solar so we have a much better estimate for that terms than we did then.

Note: I have a Master's in Mathematics.

Yes, and I've been a working math professor (with PhD) for 30+ years. Now, what was your claim? And what proof do you offer? What axioms are you using?

 

[Polymath257]

Einstein said, "Why were another seven years required for the construction of the general theory of relativity? The main reason lies in the fact that it is not so easy to free oneself from the idea that coordinates must have an immediate metrical meaning." Abductive reasoning, over time, will help us answer and agree on these questions.

Hmmm.....I've always found physicists are too coordinate-bound for their own good.