What's more believable; Aliens or God?

[outhouse]

You don't even know enough of the field to realize which specialties are relevant!!?

FALSE

you posted a creationist quack, with no real scientific backing in research relating to what we are talking about.

Creationist and people who back ID have no CREDIBILITY

 

[outhouse]

Again one name you ignore Neil Degrasse Tyson

he is the authority on this. not creation quacks with no credibility

 

[Daviso452]

What are you guys even talking about anyway? You have been talking about sources but the actual topic seems to have slipped through.

 

[outhouse]

What are you guys even talking about anyway? You have been talking about sources but the actual topic seems to have slipped through.

im stating the drake equation has merit and that life is certainly out their.

he is blindly stating the opposite

 

[Viker]

Aliens are more believable. I don't think a god is completely impossible either, just less likely.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

false

nothing ID or creation is peer reviewed [facepalm] you also posted a person who doesnt know squat about biology dealing with biology.

The book Fitness of the Cosmos for Life was published by Cambridge University Press. It doesn't say anything about ID or creationism. Among the authors are biologists. The field which concerns life elsewhere in the universe requires physicists who know the conditions of the universe, and a great deal of biology, especially the theoretical mechanisms under which life can emerge, is purely physics.

Bad information is just that

And your sources are? You don't even know whose expertise is needed when papers are published on this subject, or committees are convened, or conferences are held. You also equate the view that life is extremely improbable to ID or creationism, but they aren't the same AT ALL. There is an large difference between the idea that it is extremely unlikely that life could emerge, but we just happened to be lucky, and the view that this improbability implies design. The probability of winning the lottery is tiny, but someone wins. It doesn't mean that person cheated or the game was fixed.

 

[Sgloom]

Could have, yes. The more important question (I think) is how likely it is that life may be found elsewhere (or could have at some point in the past or could at some point in the future), and in particular does this life amount to anything more than extremely simple organisms?

the question was, whats more believable, Aliens or God. its a simple question, we have proof of life on one planet which makes it possible on others. we have no indication of any type of god other than books written by man. so aliens are more believable to me. anyone can believe or disbelieve in both, but that wasnt the question posed in the OP.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

FALSE

you posted a creationist quack, with no real scientific backing in research relating to what we are talking about.

Creationist and people who back ID have no CREDIBILITY

What creationist or ID "quack" are you referring to? The sources I referenced were written by around 30 different authors who specialize in biology, physics, mathematics, and the other relevent fields.

 

[outhouse]

The book Fitness of the Cosmos for Life was published by Cambridge University Press. It doesn't say anything about ID or creationism

who cares who published it

it was authored by a creationist quack

 

[outhouse]

What creationist or ID "quack" are you referring to? The sources I referenced were written by around 30 different authors who specialize in biology, physics, mathematics, and the other relevent fields.

False

everything you have posted thus far are creationist views, held in minority positions some considered to not even be a hypothesis by many

 

[Daviso452]

What creationist or ID "quack" are you referring to? The sources I referenced were written by around 30 different authors who specialize in biology, physics, mathematics, and the other relevent fields.

Wait, Legion, I just want to make sure things are straight. You are denying the possibility of life out in the universe, correct?

Outhouse, I do agree that there may be life out there, and that Drake's equation does have some merit, but that is not evidence that there actually is other life out there.

 

[outhouse]

There is an large difference between the idea that it is extremely unlikely that life could emerge, but we just happened to be lucky, and the view that this improbability implies design. The probability of winning the lottery is tiny, but someone wins. It doesn't mean that person cheated or the game was fixed

finally the truth come out. Showing the shaky foundation you support


first of all ID and creation are one on the same, just a different brand and color of lipstick on a known myth.

 

[outhouse]

Outhouse, I do agree that there may be life out there, and that Drake's equation does have some merit, but that is not evidence that there actually is other life out there.

I agreed with you earlier, and sort of told you i was behind you, despite that you had to ask.

The equation is not proof, just that mathmatically its impossible for life to not be out there

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

false

nothing ID or creation is peer reviewed [facepalm] you also posted a person who doesnt know squat about biology dealing with biology.

Bad information is just that

I already addressed your statement about biology. But here's something from a peer-reviewed journal Studies in the history and philosophy of science. It's an article which reviews the history of the science and beliefs behind the belief that intelligent life exists else where ("SETI" by Kukla, 2001) which directly addresses your central argument:
First, the author quotes another author whose argument is basically one repeated throughout this thread: "In fact, there are billions of galaxies, each containing billions of stars. This is the single most important reason for optimism in the search for life. In a universe so vast, with stars as numerous as grains of sand, it is hard to imagine that the conditions for life have not arisen elsewhere." The author then says of this view : "To call this an argument is to insult arguments. In fact, it’s nothing more than a profession of one’s faith that the number of stars is large enough to overwhelm

the smallness of the probability that there are ETIs associated with a randomly
selected star. Certainly this conclusion doesn’t follow from the admission that the
probability of ETI is non-zero. For however many stars there may be, so long as
the number is finite, there’s going to be a non-zero probability for intelligent life
that’s so ultramicroscopically small that the net probability of ETI anywhere in the​

universe will still be as close to zero as makes no difference."

 

[outhouse]

I already addressed your statement about biology. But here's something from a peer-reviewed journal Studies in the history and philosophy of science. It's an article which reviews the history of the science and beliefs behind the belief that intelligent life exists else where ("SETI" by Kukla, 2001) which directly addresses your central argument:
First, the author quotes another author whose argument is basically one repeated throughout this thread: "In fact, there are billions of galaxies, each containing billions of stars. This is the single most important reason for optimism in the search for life. In a universe so vast, with stars as numerous as grains of sand, it is hard to imagine that the conditions for life have not arisen elsewhere." The author then says of this view : "To call this an argument is to insult arguments. In fact, it’s nothing more than a profession of one’s faith that the number of stars is large enough to overwhelm

the smallness of the probability that there are ETIs associated with a randomly
selected star. Certainly this conclusion doesn’t follow from the admission that the
probability of ETI is non-zero. For however many stars there may be, so long as
the number is finite, there’s going to be a non-zero probability for intelligent life
that’s so ultramicroscopically small that the net probability of ETI anywhere in the​

universe will still be as close to zero as makes no difference."

Andre kukla does not follow the mainstream scientific view and shame on you for posting it that way.

he is one man with one opinion not followed by mainstream science.

 

[Daviso452]

Again. Just don't read books. They are too opinionated. Too much room for bias. How about siting Science mag? That's reliable. Or perhaps the site of a university?

I wish I could help you, Outhouse, but this conversation is too deep and I am way too far behind. You're on your own buddy

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Andre kukla does not follow the mainstream scientific view and shame on you for posting it that way.

he is one man with one opinion not followed by mainstream science.

So far, you've made a number of assertions about "mainstream science" and "bias" and maligned the reputation of credited specialists by dismissing them (without even knowing who they are) as "creationist."

I ask again, on what do you base your understanding of the state of research?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Again. Just don't read books.

That depends on the publisher. Academic publications come in a few common forms. Peer-reviewed journals are just one. A number of publishing companies (including university publishers) publish highly technical books which are reviewed. Many of these are part of a series. For example, a book lying nearby me at the moment is Fuzzy Probability and Statistics. It's published by Springer, a well-known academic publishing company. It's also volume 196 in the series "Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing." Also within grasping distance are two other books: Theoretical Neuroscience: Computational and Mathematical Modeling of Neural Systems and Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. The first is published by MIT press, and is a volume in the series "Computational Neuroscience." The second is published by Mouton de Gruyter (a company which produces a good portion of the academic work in linguistics).

Then there are books which are the published results of conference preceedings, academic committees, etc.

In other words, scholarship isn't strictly divided into journals vs. books. Specialists also rely on monographs, and edited books or series as these too are reviewed like academic journals.

Outhouse derided John Barrow, but he is just one of the editors and contributers in one of the books I cited. It was published by Cambridge University Press and is a volume in the series "Cambridge Astrobiology."

How about siting Science mag? That's reliable. Or perhaps the site of a university?

I cited a peer-reviewed journal in my last post, but Outhouse again maligned the author and the work. I could continue to cite such articles, like Mash's article on the improper use of "big numbers" and induction in arguments for the existence of extraterrestrial life. However, I imagine I would get the same reaction.

I started trying to make one point, but it has now become two. The second, unfortunately, is just a reaction to Outhouse's derisive comments about the authors and sources I use, which I believe is unjustified and so have asked for a basis for certain assertions made about what types of specialists are important when it comes to this question, the status of the field, etc.

The more important point is simply that 1) it is logically flawed to think that the fact that life exists on earth means it is at all likely to exist elsewhere. This argument has been made many times, including in peer-reviewed journals. More importently, it may be that the conditions for life, particularly intelligent life, are so rare that life elsewhere is virtually impossible.

If this is true, how does one weigh the probability of god vs. aliens?

 

[outhouse]

So far, you've made a number of assertions about "mainstream science" and "bias" and maligned the reputation of credited specialists by dismissing them (without even knowing who they are) as "creationist."

I ask again, on what do you base your understanding of the state of research?

I dont know that Kulka is a creationist

but he doesnt follow mainstream science

Like I said, you want to catch my attention quit posting oddball pseudoscientific views and creationist views

and start posting something known valid scientist say, like Neil Degrasse Tyson

 

[outhouse]

I ask again, on what do you base your understanding of the state of research?

My current knowledge