Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARCHIVE: Signals from space aliens or random chance?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ThePhy
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    That's only if you assume that everything we observe isn't designed.

    After all.... if God (or some other force) designed reality then all natural processes are designed.
    I have no objection with that approach at a fundamental level in nature. But this comes very close to defining God as nature.

    If he set in motion all of the fundamental laws of nature, then many of the derivative things in nature that science observes must then be results of his handiwork. Things (to be discussed outside of this thread) like a very old earth, no Flood of Noah, evolution of species, evidence that the universe was the result of some “big bang” type event, etc.

    Hide God under it all, nothing changes. I think He does not exist, your scientist buddies think He does. But in the lab, where we investigate science, side by side I and the believers garner the same results.

    And, in line with the OP, either way there is no reason to think other intelligent life forms couldn’t do what nature is unlikely to do in a short time – send a complex intelligent message.

    Leave a comment:


  • Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by ThePhy View Post
    Many things that look to be “design” in life can arise via natural processes in human-sensible timeframes.
    That's only if you assume that everything we observe isn't designed.

    After all.... if God (or some other force) designed reality then all natural processes are designed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Knight
    replied
    FYI: I moved this thread to the Hall of Fame forum.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThePhy
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    I won't speak for Knight, but my interpretation is that you recognise design in a message from space but not in life.
    Many things that look to be “design” in life can arise via natural processes in human-sensible timeframes.

    By contrast, the likelihood of random chance creating Knight’s message is almost dead zero over the time SETI has been active. And we know there is at least one example of intelligent (somewhat intelligent) life in the universe – us. Many of us are not so enamored with our own self importance to think we are the only intelligent life.

    So allowing for the very reasonable possibility of “other” intelligent life that could send such a signal, and the extremely low chance that it is random, opting for an intelligent source is the most reasonable option.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by ThePhy View Post
    Knight’s proposal in the OP was a very reasonable one – not at all unlike what SETI would love to have happen.

    It wasn’t the answer that we all agreed on that was the problem, it was Knight’s hijacking our answer as support for his aberrant interpretation of what that answer then means.
    I won't speak for Knight, but my interpretation is that you recognise design in a message from space but not in life.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThePhy
    replied
    Originally posted by kmoney View Post
    You did. And several others have. But did he? I haven't seen it so I asked him. If he already has answered then he is free to ignore the question.
    Knight’s proposal in the OP was a very reasonable one – not at all unlike what SETI would love to have happen.

    It wasn’t the answer that we all agreed on that was the problem, it was Knight’s hijacking our answer as support for his aberrant interpretation of what that answer then means.

    Leave a comment:


  • kmoney
    replied
    Originally posted by Pekkle View Post
    We have repeatedly said that the odds there is intelligent life in the universe capable of sending a signal far surpass the odds that the signal was random.
    You did. And several others have. But did he? I haven't seen it so I asked him. If he already has answered then he is free to ignore the question.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pekkle
    replied
    Originally posted by kmoney View Post
    I really don't think Knight had natural selection in mind when he started this thread. And I believe he even said that somewhere in this thread. Anyway, do you have an answer to the question in the opening post?
    We have repeatedly said that the odds there is intelligent life in the universe capable of sending a signal far surpass the odds that the signal was random.

    Leave a comment:


  • kmoney
    replied
    Originally posted by NotSamHarris View Post
    Well, just thought that I'll save you some time and cut to the chase. Natural selection is not random. No biologist will tell you that.
    I really don't think Knight had natural selection in mind when he started this thread. And I believe he even said that somewhere in this thread. Anyway, do you have an answer to the question in the opening post?

    Leave a comment:


  • NotSamHarris
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Yeah, so? Like you said, evolutionists like to call evolution non-random. So why would we set a trap with no spring?
    Well, just thought that I'll save you some time and cut to the chase. Natural selection is not random. No biologist will tell you that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by NotSamHarris View Post
    Don't kid yourself. The setup is blatantly about whether a very unlikely event might happen as a result of randomness or whether it requires an intelligent agent.
    Yeah, so? Like you said, evolutionists like to call evolution non-random. So why would we set a trap with no spring?

    Leave a comment:


  • NotSamHarris
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    This discussion != evolution.
    Don't kid yourself. The setup is blatantly about whether a very unlikely event might happen as a result of randomness or whether it requires an intelligent agent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by NotSamHarris View Post
    Random mutations AND Natural selection != purely random noise.
    This discussion != evolution.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotSamHarris
    replied
    Random mutations AND Natural selection != purely random noise.

    Leave a comment:


  • PyramidHead
    replied
    Originally posted by kmoney View Post
    Since the length of time that SETI has been in operation is important to you, how long would SETI need to be searching for signals for you to say it was just a random occurrence?
    a very, very, very long time

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X