Community

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
You are claiming that if we "don't know if there is life out there" we can't claim that the only known instance of life is a special circumstance; that logic is backwards - until we know if there is other life out there, the only known circumstances in which life is known to occur can certainly be considered to be special - unique even.

That is the only proposition which can be falsified, and thus the only real scientific claim in this discussion.

It's like the whole unicorn argument. If I claim that there are no unicorns, such a claim is scientific because it's falsifiable. Arguing that, "we don't know if there is a unicorn out there and we don't know that they don't exist" does not negate the scientific nature of the statement that unicorns don't exist.

quote:

quote:


But you agree that you don't know if there is life outside out solar system or not?

Science does not deal with absolute proof. We can't absolutely prove that unicorns don't exist, but claiming that they don't is a falsifiable, and hence scientific, statement.

quote:

You admit that you have no argument. You don't have any logical pathway leading to your conclusion. When I pointed this out to you in post 44, you responded with this, in post 45:

quote:

You admit that you have no argument. You don't have any logical pathway leading to your conclusion. When I pointed this out to you in post 44, you responded with this, in post 45:

quote:

So, now you are saying that you do have an argument. You obviously don't.

Here are your options:

1) Present an argument presenting your case.
2) Stop pretending that you have an argument.

quote:

The way you use 'exceptional' here, is NOT objective. Also, it makes no difference.

Lets use exceptional in stead and see where that gets us:

Do you have an argument that leads if from "the Earth is exceptional" to "the Earth is designed"? If you have, present it.

quote:

How dishonest of you.

Here is the original quote:

Juhd: But you are the one basing your belief on gaps in our knowledge, not I.

I respond with this:

BVZ: What are those? Examples please.

YOU CHANGED THE QUOTES! You claimed that evolution supporters 'are the ones basing thier beliefs on gaps in thier knowledge'. I ask for examples.

Support your claim, or retract it.

quote:

Answer the question. Do you agree that we don't know if there is life outside out solar system or not?

quote:

So those are the premises for your argument. It doesn't look good for ID at this point, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. From these premises, how do you reach "there must be a designer" ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

You admit that you have no argument. You don't have any logical pathway leading to your conclusion. When I pointed this out to you in post 44, you responded with this, in post 45:

Well, I never made that particular argument to begin with; you assumed it.

quote:

quote:

You admit that you have no argument. You don't have any logical pathway leading to your conclusion. When I pointed this out to you in post 44, you responded with this, in post 45:

Well, no, I am simply arguing that contrary to the Copernican Principle our solar system appears to be exceptional. You have presented no evidence to the contrary.

quote:

quote:

So, now you are saying that you do have an argument. You obviously don't.

Here are your options:

1) Present an argument presenting your case.
2) Stop pretending that you have an argument.

It's a simple argument - I made it several times - you never demonstrated anything to the contrary.

quote:

quote:

The way you use 'exceptional' here, is NOT objective. Also, it makes no difference.

Lets use exceptional in stead and see where that gets us:

Do you have an argument that leads if from "the Earth is exceptional" to "the Earth is designed"? If you have, present it.

I presented the latest research in the OP.

quote:

quote:

How dishonest of you.

Here is the original quote:

Juhd: But you are the one basing your belief on gaps in our knowledge, not I.

I respond with this:

BVZ: What are those? Examples please.

YOU CHANGED THE QUOTES! You claimed that evolution supporters 'are the ones basing thier beliefs on gaps in thier knowledge'. I ask for examples.

Support your claim, or retract it.

You have made a bit of a muddle. I am simply saying that despite your assertion that we can't prove there is no other life in the universe, we can say that at this point in our knowledge our solar system is exceptional.

quote:

quote:

Answer the question. Do you agree that we don't know if there is life outside out solar system or not?

Sure, just as I agree we don't know that there are unicorns in a secret forest somewhere - but by all our current knowledge (which is increased by this research) it appears our solar system is exceptional in this regard. An argument that we can't know completely is not an aargument that we don't know what the evidence thus far is making increasingly clear. This is what I mean when I say you are arguing from the gaps - you are trying to disprove what we know by what we don't know.

quote:

quote:

So those are the premises for your argument. It doesn't look good for ID at this point, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. From these premises, how do you reach "there must be a designer" ?

There are voluminous reasons to see the universe, life, and humanity as designed - but this is simply the latest evidence in regards to our solar system. It’s just another brick.

quote:

quote:

From the OP:
So we seem to live in a finely-tuned universe, in a rare place in the galaxy, in a special solar system, on a planet that appears to be more than capable of supporting life. At what point does believing it's an accident become the real leap of faith?

Your question clearly implies your argument. You argue that since we live in a 'finely tuned universe', 'in a rare place in the galaxy', 'in a special solar system', 'on a planet that appears more than capable of supporting life', it must be designed.

I simply asked you to support this.

quote:

Are you NOT attempting to support ID IN ANY WAY in this thread? Because if you are not, I suggest you edit your OP to inform people who read it, becuase the moment the way the OP is written indicates that you ARE trying to support ID in this thread.

quote:

You are saying that you don't have an argument, but you do have a conclusion. Your entire argument rests on 'the alternative to appear absurd'. There is a name for this kind of argument, where you argue that since something is counter-intuitive, it cannot be true. It's calles argument from incrudility.

quote:

You also, like I pointed out earlier in this post, admitted that you DON'T have an actual logical argument supporting your claims. This reduces your OP to an unsupported claim, or a blind assertion.

quote:

You can say it, but how is saying it of any use?

quote:

So, you agree that we don't know. Good. So, since you don't know if there is life out there or not, why do you think the Earth is special again?

quote:

Jack I think you have just been wooed by some somewhat sensationalist journalism.

For starters the search for exoplanets is a relatively new endeavour and generally the planets found thus far are the ones which are easiest to find.

The techniques used are more likely to find planets with a large mass and a close orbit as these produce greater irregularities in a stars motion as they have a greater effect on the systems local centre of gravity.

Moreover, a planet which is close to its star will complete an orbit quickly which means that patterns in data will be repeated quicker. So they are also easier to confirm.

FYI our Jupiter completes an orbit every 11.86 years, therefore to confirm a large planet like Jupiter can take a lot of time.

As to whether our place in the universe is special or not history has proven so far that the more we know the less special our location has become.

Many moons ago we thought we lived at the centre of the universe now we know that it is just the rest of the universe trying to get away from us

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Actually, if you read the details, the observations are confirmed by computer models - and while I agree there is more to know, I a willing to predict that our solar system will be found to be rare indeed, if not unique.

And as far as we know, we may be the at the center of the universe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

quote:

From the OP:
So we seem to live in a finely-tuned universe, in a rare place in the galaxy, in a special solar system, on a planet that appears to be more than capable of supporting life. At what point does believing it's an accident become the real leap of faith?

Your question clearly implies your argument. You argue that since we live in a 'finely tuned universe', 'in a rare place in the galaxy', 'in a special solar system', 'on a planet that appears more than capable of supporting life', it must be designed.

I simply asked you to support this.

I asked a question, which readers are free to answer for themselves – at what point do a series finely-tuned complex specificities of an exceptional nature indicate guidance? Atheists may claim ‘never’, but I think that is a statement of faith, because they must resort to ever more absurd schema (for example, ‘multi-verses’) to explain away such realities.

quote:

quote:

Are you NOT attempting to support ID IN ANY WAY in this thread? Because if you are not, I suggest you edit your OP to inform people who read it, becuase the moment the way the OP is written indicates that you ARE trying to support ID in this thread.

I think you are the only one who is confused.

quote:

quote:

You are saying that you don't have an argument, but you do have a conclusion. Your entire argument rests on 'the alternative to appear absurd'. There is a name for this kind of argument, where you argue that since something is counter-intuitive, it cannot be true. It's calles argument from incrudility.

Actually, my goal was simply to point out that the current findings contradicts the Copernican Principle – that being the mid-20th century paradigm generally accepted by science that the earth holds no privileged place in the universe. No obviously, this paradigm is based on certain assumptions since we can’t, as you yourself have pointed out, know absolutely what position the earth holds in the universe, but the research I cited (utilizing observations and computer simulations) gives us a better picture.

quote:


And based on that research, we can say that the Copernican Principle isn’t fairing at well, that the earth (at least in it’s place in our solar system) does appear to be exceptional, and remains so until we find facts to the contrary.

quote:

quote:

You also, like I pointed out earlier in this post, admitted that you DON'T have an actual logical argument supporting your claims. This reduces your OP to an unsupported claim, or a blind assertion.

Actually I think the statement above is more than logical.

quote:

quote:

You can say it, but how is saying it of any use?

It simply contradicts the Copernican Principle, which is of great use in forming a more complete understanding of the universe in which we live – presumably the goal of science.

quote:

quote:

So, you agree that we don't know. Good. So, since you don't know if there is life out there or not, why do you think the Earth is special again?

Because based on our current knowledge, it is exceptional not only in having life, but in existing in a solar system perfectly suited for life.

quote:


But this is a basic Popperian falsification schema with which I am surprised that you, a presumed doyen of science, are unfamiliar. As Popper made clear, a proper scientific statement should be amenable to falsification – thus, the statement ‘All swans are white’. Now such a statement (like all good scientific statements) can’t be proven, but it can be disproven – by a single observation to the contrary in fact.

And so, saying the earth and its solar system is exceptional in terms of its ability to support life is properly stated a la Popper, and so is eminently scientific.

quote:

So you are NOT trying to syppord ID in the OP?

quote:

Like I said before, this is a valid position. If that was the only thing you are trying to show, great. Is that the ONLY thing you are trying to show in this thread?

quote:

When you use the word 'logical' the way you just used it, does that mean you DO have an argument? If you do, please present it.

quote:

Again, if you want to discredit the Copernical Priniciple. As long as you are not attempting to suppord ID I see no problem.

quote:

So it goes something like this:
Statement 1: I don't know if Earth is the only planet with life on it.
Question 1: Why do you think the Earth is special?
Statement 2: Because it is the only planet with life on it.

Do you see that Statement 1 and Statement 2 contradict each other?

Also, this is an ABSOLUTELY CLASSIC God of the Gaps argument. Basically you are fitting God into the gaps in our knowledge. The gaps in out knowledge is weather other planets contain life or not. We don't know yet. You can't base your arguments on something we DON'T KNOW YET.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

So you are NOT trying to syppord ID in the OP?

My main purpose was to contradict the Copernican Principle.

quote:

Like I said before, this is a valid position. If that was the only thing you are trying to show, great. Is that the ONLY thing you are trying to show in this thread?

Thank you for validating my position.

quote:

When you use the word 'logical' the way you just used it, does that mean you DO have an argument? If you do, please present it.

I made the argument, and you agreed it was valid.

quote:

Again, if you want to discredit the Copernical Priniciple. As long as you are not attempting to suppord ID I see no problem.

It simply invalidates the materialist postion - I am glad you agree it's valid.

quote:

So it goes something like this:
Statement 1: I don't know if Earth is the only planet with life on it.
Question 1: Why do you think the Earth is special?
Statement 2: Because it is the only planet with life on it.

Do you see that Statement 1 and Statement 2 contradict each other?

Also, this is an ABSOLUTELY CLASSIC God of the Gaps argument. Basically you are fitting God into the gaps in our knowledge. The gaps in out knowledge is weather other planets contain life or not. We don't know yet. You can't base your arguments on something we DON'T KNOW YET.

Actually, it's a negation, not an argument. The Copernican principle is just as absurd, but widely accepted. It goes like this:

1. Everything in the universe is explainable through ordinary forces acting within the universe.
2. The earth is the product of the same forces that have acted on other stars, star systems, and planets.
3. The earth is ordinary in it's place in the the universe and composition of the system in which it exists.

I think these latest findings cast that belief into doubt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude

Not to rain on this parade or anything, but there are a few things I haven't seen mentioned in this debate yet.

First, our technology has really only allowed us to see either massive or large planets. It's much harder to detect small planets, or planets of comparably low mass than it is to detect gas giants. The smallest planet we've been able to detect (that I can find) is 1.5 Earth masses. It really shouldn't come as a surprise that the majority of planets we've found have been big, because big planets are easier to find. It's a bit of a leap to assume that Earth mass and lower planets are rare. It should first be assumed that either the method, or the technology is lacking to detect them, considering that 4 of our 8 planets are near Earth mass or lower.

Second, one of the lower-mass planets that we have found, Gliese 581 c, seems to be within it's star's habitable zone. Even if this is the only of the 306 exoplanets to be low-mass and exist in a habitable zone (I don't know if it is, it's just the only one I know about), then 1/300 isn't all that bad of a ratio for habitable-zone planets. Especially if the average star turns out to have multiple planets.
Gliese 581 c is almost certainly a hothouse planet, but Gliese 581 d also exists within the habitable-zone (granted, on the outer edge.)

Third, one recent study (link) suggests that lower-mass planets may be much more common than the easily-detectable gas giants, by a ratio of as much as 3/1.

If anything, I'd say that we don't know nearly enough about other solar systems to draw any definitive conclusions about the commonality or uniqueness of our own.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Actually, if you read the details, the observations are confirmed by computer models - and while I agree there is more to know, I a willing to predict that our solar system will be found to be rare indeed, if not unique.

And as far as we know, we may be the at the center of the universe.

quote:

Over the last few decades, astronomers have discovered that the redshifts of the galaxies are not evenly distributed but are 'quantized', i.e., they tend to fall into distinct groups. This means that the distances to the galaxies also fall into groups, with each group of galaxies forming a conceptual spherical shell. The shells turn out to be about a million light-years apart.

It is remarkable that the shells are all concentric and all centered on our home galaxy, the Milky Way. If they weren't, we would not see groups of redshifts. Russ Humphreys shows that groups would only be distinct from each other if our viewing location were less than a million light years (a trivial distance on the scale of the universe) from the center.

The odds for the Earth having such a unique position in the cosmos by accident are less than one in a trillion.

quote:

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch

Interstingly, there is some evidence that is actually beginning to sugest that this is true. See here

Of course Humphreys' a creationist so no big surprise, yet his credentials and research are good enouogh to make the whole thing look worthwhile study and 'let's see where this data leads' incentives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Quantized redshifts have been studied for decades, and it is not clear that it even exists, apart from weak coincidental effects.

quote:

Of course, in the standard cosmological model, there is no center of the universe. Equivalently, everywhere is the center of the universe, including Earth. But again, the Earth is not special in that case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch
I have a problem with the "everywhere is the center" concept. Think about it for a second. No mater where you are in the universe, you are at the center? Doesn't make any sense spatially in an expanding universe wherein there must be a farthest point out from the original expanse or 'singularity'.

quote:

Otherwise why do scientists now claim to have measured the size of the universe?

quote:

If everywhere is the center how can you measure anything? Since you start from point A and meauser to point B. But if A and B are spatially equal, which is the case if both are the center, then you haven't measured anything at all. Right? Am I making any sense here?