Ruling out the possibility of a creator

[whap2005]

I want to start off by saying that I do not believe in the bible thumper’s version of ID. It is not based on any real science, and there is no tangible evidence that humans have a direct creator. I also have no doubt that evolution is a reality, and that we are the result of genetic mutation which has been channeled for billions of years by competition and environmental change (all or which appears to be random).

 

However, many people believe that it is possible and even probable, that human beings will eventually be able to create new life forms either in alaboratory using biological means, or electronically using computer technology. For those people, I ask this question:

 

If you believe that humans have or will have the power to create life from the raw materials that make up our universe, how can you rule out that possibility that life on this planet didn’t come into existence under similar circumstances?

 

(And for those who don’t believe that humans will eventually learn how to create life, I challenge you to prove why it isn’t possible)

 

Although I do not believe we have yet proved that life on this planet is the result of random events, I do believe that the first instance of life in our universe must have been a random event; simply because there is no other way it could have come into existence. However there is no reason to believe that our planet is the first place in the universe in which life first came into existence or evolve to reach conciseness. I think it is reasonable that any life form that reaches conciseness and discovers the technology and the means to create life, may choose to do so. (I in fact, think it is probable that they would).

 

I’ve seen a lot of posts lately from people making fun of the ID and I understand a lot of it. Most of the arguments I’ve seen out there are ridiculous, as I’m sure this one may seem to many. I don’t however believe every argument for ID is flawed. The only way to rule out the possibility that we were not “created” is to first discover whether or not it is possible to create life from non-natural means. If we find that it is possible, then we need to prove that we were the first (or the only) life forms in the universe to discover how. Science of course, is the only way we are going to answer these questions which is why I believe science is the only true religion.

[MM6]

I don't understand the point or logic in your thesis/ question.

 

The only way to rule out the possibility that we were not “created” is to first discover whether or not it is possible to create life from non-natural means. If we find that it is possible, then we need to prove that we were the first (or the only) life forms in the universe to discover how.

 

You're talking about raw materials. Are you suggesting that we were created by aliens? B/c there were no raw materials when "god" created the universe. There was nothing. Moreover, god didn't just create one or several types of lifeforms. He created everything, living, nonliving, all the rules of the universe. (I'm speaking from the believers' position).

 

Secondly, the ability to do something does not mean that a creature does that thing, despite your assertion that is does (or is probable, as you state). You can't build an argument on that. When we do create life from raw materials, that still doesn't prove or disprove anything about how we or the rest of the universe was created, or any of the life forms in it, including those on Earth.

 

Lastly, how could we ever prove that we were the first (or only) life form in the universe to create life de novo? That's pragmatically impossible, and likely flatout impossible.

 

What exactly are you trying to sell here? Your logic is seriously flawed throughout.

[ecoli]

There is equally no proof that says human life was created by God as there is that human life was created by alien species. Despite that, most scientists I've talked to believe the former is more plausible.

[MM6]

There is equally no proof that says human life was created by God as there is that human life was created by alien species. Despite that, most scientists I've talked to believe the former is more plausible.

 

Created by aliens is much more probable (infinitely?) than created by god, consistent with the probability of the existence of aliens v existence of universe-creating god. Anyway, if we were created by aliens that only begs the question, who created the aliens? we've only pushed the question back one step.

[PhDP]

There is equally no proof that says human life was created by God as there is that human life was created by alien species. Despite that, most scientists I've talked to believe the former is more plausible.

 

While I don't think any of those options are probable, the alien hypothesis is far more reasonable. You don't need to invoke any supernatural being and it's less anthropocentric. It's possible there's life out there, it's possible some forms of life, like us, have evolved a civilization. With an advanced knowledge of biochemistry and planetoly, creating life on a planet isn't that far stretched. The fact that there's no proof for 2 hypothesis certainly doesn't mean they are equally plausible. It's all about parsimony.

[Milken]

I think the odds of a human like life form is close to zero. The factors neccessariy to get the Universe, galaxies, planets, earth, and ecosystem are so many, complex and fragile.

[whap2005]

I think the odds of a human like life form is close to zero. The factors neccessariy to get the Universe, galaxies, planets, earth, and ecosystem are so many, complex and fragile.

 

I agree that the odds of life which was created by random events elsewhere in the universe evolving to look like us is close to zero. However if life here was seeded by another form of life, then the odds of use looking similar to them increase dramatically. It is also possible that life on this planet is the first to evolve in our universe, which means we will be the ones who eventually may spread life elsewhere.

[YT2095]

I don`t see HOW you can possibly "rule out" the idea of a Creator?

 

if you`re an advocate of Cause/Effect, you simply cannot.

 

Granted our creator is most likely to have been the result of Circumstance and correct conditions over HUGE amounts of time, but non the less, we DID come from Something!

you Know, the Right Molecule at the Right Place at the Right Time etc...

[Phi for All]

Science is not in the business of ruling things out. It merely assigns lower probability to those things which aren't testable and falsifiable. Logically, a good scientist recognizes improbable occurences are not impossible ones.

 

Also, a creator is not incompatible with evolution, as long as the creator is not an impatient one. I actually enjoy the thought of a creator who does the least amount of effort possible to start the ball rolling and is willing to let time and process take care of the rest.

 

When ID starts talking about a creator who can't be observed due to the nature of faith, it is not science and does not belong in the classroom alongside science. Those seeking religious instruction or faith-based solutions have other venues for such information.

[MM6]

I think the odds of a human like life form is close to zero. The factors neccessariy to get the Universe, galaxies, planets, earth, and ecosystem are so many, complex and fragile.

 

Estimating the number of galactic civilizations isn’t a trivial exercise. It requires a great deal of knowldege of cosmic evolution. There is a very popular equation known as the Drake equation (which I'm sure most here are familiar with), after the American astronomer who first devised an early version of it in the 1960s:

 

number of technologically intelligent civilizations now present in the Galaxy =

 

rate of star formation averaged over the lifetime of the Galaxy x

 

fraction of stars having planetary systems x

 

average number of planets within those planetary systems that are suitable for life x

 

fraction of habitable planets on which life actually arises x

 

fraction of life-bearing planets on which intelligence evolves x

 

fraction of intelligent-life planets that develop a technological society x

 

average lifetime of a technologically competent civilization.

 

 

 

Substituting pessimistic values into the equation, along with other optimistic values, we find

 

number of galactic civilizations =

 

10 stars per year x

 

1 planetary system per star x

 

0.1 habitable planet per planetary system x

 

1 planet with life per habitable planet x

 

0.000001 planet with intelligence per planets with life x

 

1 planet with technology per planets with intelligence x

 

lifetime (in years) per planets with technology.

 

This long equation boils down to a simple answer, after we cancel all the units. That answer is 0.000001 x lifetime (in years). In other words, even if the lifetime of a typically advanced civilization is a million years, the number of galactic civilizations equals 1. That's us! For more than a single civilization to reside now in the Galaxy, the average lifetime of all civilizations must exceed 1 million years.

 

That said, take note that even with this pessimistic estimate for the eventual onset of intelligence, thousands of other civilizations might be spread across the Galaxy, provided that their average lifetime is billions of years. Thus the average longevity of technological civilizations is a critically important factor regarding the prevalence of smart extraterrestrial beings.

 

The universe consists of approximately 100 billion galaxies. The Drake equation gives (1 civilization per galaxy)(100 billion galaxies in universe) = 100 billion civilizations in the universe. We most certainly are not alone. The civilizations are just too far from us to make contact, given our current technologies (and theirs, no doubt). Of course, the Drake equation estimates "intelligent life". Our galaxy may be filled with wonderful creatures that we would consider of sub-human intelligence, but fascinating nonetheless. Moreover, given more time (on an evolutionary timescale) some of these species of sub-human intelligence will evolve into intelligent life. So there is much to look forward to.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

 

All that said, it seems improbable that we were seeded by an alien species, since the universe has not existed long enough for one to have evolved spacefaring capabilities, and then to have reached our galaxy in the allotted time. Moreover, there is no solid evidence of alien visitation (other than the supposed original visit). More reasonably, life arose from simple chemical precursors, aka theory of Abiogenesis (really more of a hypothesis, at this point). Life arose/ and will continue to arise through such a process.

 

The idea that a supernatural creator made the universe and all life is foolish, statistically. As complex and improbable as the universe is (assuming existence of one universe; no multiverse hypothesis), then the diety that would have created such a universe, would have to be that much more complex and improbable. It makes no sense to invoke a divine creator, as such a diety is infinitely improbable.

[bascule]

If you believe that humans have or will have the power to create life from the raw materials that make up our universe, how can you rule out that possibility that life on this planet didn’t come into existence under similar circumstances?

 

Where's the evidence of such circumstances?

 

I believe what the evidence tells me until new evidence says otherwise.

[whap2005]

Estimating the number of galactic civilizations isn’t a trivial exercise. It requires a great deal of knowldege of cosmic evolution. There is a very popular equation known as the Drake equation (which I'm sure most here are familiar with), after the American astronomer who first devised an early version of it in the 1960s.

 

I have always thought Drake equations is flawed mainly because it only factors in planets and stars the are condusive to life similar to our own. I'm also not sure that the technology for traversing (or at least communiating) over the vast distances of space is as far off as you imply. Just think of what we have learned and the technologies that have been devoloped over the past 100 years, and the pace of advancement only seems to be increasing.

[Milken]

I agree that the odds of life which was created by random events elsewhere in the universe evolving to look like us is close to zero. However if life here was seeded by another form of life, then the odds of use looking similar to them increase dramatically. It is also possible that life on this planet is the first to evolve in our universe, which means we will be the ones who eventually may spread life elsewhere.

 

My point is if their is some kind of life out there it WON'T be like ours, it'll have to function on different elements. I don't know, breath fire or something. The galaxy we're in, location in the galaxy, orbits, planets positioned to block asteriods and comets, atmostphere, magnetic field, PLATE TECHTONICS, it goes on and on, earth is nothing like any planet out there(as far as we know).

[Milken]

The Drake Equation seems so . . . . guessy. If I may use that word.

[aguy2]

The Drake Equation seems so . . . . guessy. If I may use that word.

 

Gabriel supposedly tells Mohammad that there are [other] devils out there, but that they are a long way away and not to worry about them.

 

aguy2