By demonstrating that a mechanism can randomly become a more complex mechanism whereby its complexity is irreducible.

11 hours ago, FBW737 said:

I guess my reference to intelligent design was interpreted as religious discussion.

 

Inteligent design relates to an inteligent designer, a deity a god. Thus, it's a subject matter that isn't allowed here.

Yes it's censorship and censorship is required on a forum to avoid the obvious meltdown that would result from debating such an emotive concept.

Edited September 19, 20232 yr by martin-w

11 hours ago, FBW737 said:

By demonstrating that a mechanism can randomly become a more complex mechanism

 

Been done. We can take a few simple computer programing parameters, let the program run and watch extreme complexity result.

Same applies to biological evolution, with the parameters being random genetic mutation, procreation and mortality. Run the aforementioned over billions of years and the extreme complexity you see in the natural world results. 

And I suspect evolution too, is one of those emotive topics that will result in a moderator suddenly appearing with a key for a lock.

On 9/17/2023 at 8:38 PM, dmwalker said:

If the presence of DMS is confirmed, there would then be pressure to prove that it can only be produced biologically. I imagine nobody has tried really hard to do that yet.

My take is that it would be impossible to prove. To prove it one has to be able to exclude every alternative including those we don't know yet...
If other methods also indicate there migh be life there it will of course strengthen the claim that there could be life on that planet.

 

1 hour ago, orchestra_nl said:

My take is that it would be impossible to prove. To prove it one has to be able to exclude every alternative including those we don't know yet...

I think it's more likely that someone will prove that it can be made by non-biological methods. I don't see what is so special about it that it can't be synthesised in a laboratory.  The question would then be whether conditions on the exoplanet could support that synthetic process. We may never know but DMS is sufficiently unique that K2-18 b should, at least, be put on a list of planets worthy of further study.

14 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

I think it's more likely that someone will prove that it can be made by non-biological methods.

That is what I mean; It is impossible to prove -absolutely, beyond any doubt- that something cannot be done.
However, if it requires a laboratory to produce we can safely assume that there is life on that planet, and quite intelligent at that😊

If it can be proven that a proces other than life can produce DMS it does not change much IMHO since then we don't know whether these circumstances exist on K2-18 b, and to prove thát is equally difficult.

2 hours ago, orchestra_nl said:

If it can be proven that a proces other than life can produce DMS it does not change much IMHO since then we don't know whether these circumstances exist on K2-18 b,

That's the thing. I found two processes, both involving methyl alcohol and hydrogen sulphide. One requires an aluminium oxide catalyst and the other, a specially modified zeolite catalyst. In any case, I think they are both vapour phase and high temperature so impossible on an ocean world.

The other thing would be that, if the DMS is being produced by a chemical reaction, you might expect to find traces of the starting chemicals in the atmosphere.

Edited September 19, 20232 yr by dmwalker

13 hours ago, martin-w said:

Inteligent design relates to an inteligent designer, a deity a god. Thus, it's a subject matter that isn't allowed here.

The Creation Theory of the universe is not religious.  It posits the existence of an omnipotent being or beings who designed and created the universe.  This does not involve religion.  Please refrain from creating(no pun intended) issues where there are none.

In my opinion, it is inconceivable that the near perfection of the human body, or the beauty and symmetry of a flower, or the amazing design of thousands of other forms of life, are simply the result of random combinations of molecules, no matter how many combinations there have been.

It is certainly an interesting academic thought experiment to imagine something like this: after the Big Bang created the universe, over billions of years some elements eventually randomly combined to produce some molecules, and then some of those molecules randomly combined to produce some compounds, and then some of those compounds eventually combined to produce some amino acids, and then some of those amino acids combined to produce proteins, and then some of those proteins randomly combined to produce complex cells, and then some complex cells eventually and somehow came up with a way to reproduce themselves and so, just by chance, DNA and RNA developed, and then some cells eventually reproduced and came together to form plants and bacteria and such, and then some cells eventually just started to reproduce and build very complex organisms like animals and human beings.  Whew!  And I just barely touched the surface of what would be involved in the development of all those organic substances and extremely complex lifeforms.

But if one wants to believe that all this "just happened", then be my guest.  I won't debate this any further as I cannot prove my theory, just as no one else can prove theirs.

Dave

 

1 minute ago, dave2013 said:

The Creation Theory of the universe is not religious.  [ ... ]   I won't debate this any further as I cannot prove my theory, just as no one else can prove theirs.

All fine and dandy, as long as you define "proving a theory" properly. I am only objecting to labelling the creation theory as "scientific". Science has very clear definitions on how to prove a hypothesis: through repeatable experiments that have the potential to prove it wrong. Apart from cosmology, virtually all established hypotheses in science pass this test. I don't see that happening with intelligent design.

Don't get me wrong: a hypothesis can be correct, useful, life-changing without bearing the label "scientific". And everyone is invited to challenge established scientific hypotheses, as long as they adhere to the same scientific standards. You can even challenge it without meeting those standards, but you won't convince scientists then.

Peter 

45 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

The Creation Theory of the universe is not religious.

Your definitions of Creation Theory and omnipotent beings seem to be a bit different from all the definitions I can find. Perhaps you could say that your version of Creation Theory is not religious. 

For the purpose of this topic, would you say that Creation Theory allows for alien life on exoplanets, which were also created by an omnipotent being but possibly in a different form than ours? 

Edited September 19, 20232 yr by dmwalker

I should add that I think both sides of this discussion are rubbish, since I don't even accept any of the presuppositions it's based on. But I'm happy to chat within the echo chamber of cognitive dissonance and rattle the cage.  I don't even accept that science or pseudo science of any discipline (not even physics) has any real claim to Objectivity at all, at all. Personally, I give credence to the theory that the universe is a simulation. Matrix like, if you will!🤔🤣🤪 So in that regard aliens don't exist until I encounter one. Then they do.😋

Edited September 19, 20232 yr by FBW737

44 minutes ago, qqwertz said:

All fine and dandy, as long as you define "proving a theory" properly. I am only objecting to labelling the creation theory as "scientific".

Yes, I don't believe that the Creation *hypothesis* is scientific.  I corrected myself in labeling Creation as a theory BTW.

If my recollection of science classes is correct, I believe that a hypothesis is primarily based on observation, with no repeatedly reproducible results which would make it a theory.  My observation tells me that all this had to be designed by some intelligence.

The origin of the universe is one of those things that I don't think can be discovered or proven, unless my hypothesis is true and the omnipotent being(s) make themselves known and actually create a star or planet before our very eyes.

One runs into problems like, with the Big Bang for instance, where did the matter and energy of the Big Bang come from in the first place?

Interesting discussion.

Dave

2 hours ago, dmwalker said:

For the purpose of this topic, would you say that Creation Theory allows for alien life on exoplanets, which were also created by an omnipotent being but possibly in a different form than ours? 

Absolutely.  I think that it is likely there are thousands or millions of worlds with alien life, including intelligent beings as or more advanced than ourselves.

If we're the only ones, it would be an awful waste of space(I don't recall who said that).

Dave

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

unless my hypothesis is true and the omnipotent being(s) make themselves known and actually create a star or planet before our very eyes.

That's exactly what happens. The objects of your experience don't exist unless you are looking at them or are sensually aware of them otherwise. While your eye's are open the wave function is collapsing left, right and centre into the objects of your experience. Same for me and everyone else. I find the existence of other consciences easier to infer than what Kant called noumenal objects. There are no empirical grounds for believing that such a thing even exist. Even suggesting that there is, is a contradiction. And yet virtually every human being walking the face of the earth takes these objects for granted! They are IMO purely ideological. That means real enough to kill over.🤣And you guys take issue with the notion of an omnipotent creator?

 

1 hour ago, FBW737 said:

The objects of your experience don't exist unless you are looking at them or are sensually aware of them otherwise

I am not even slightly philosophical so I am probably misunderstanding your arguments but I have to ask, if you are looking at a person on a webcam, does the person exist or is it only the monitor and its display which exist?

Edited September 20, 20232 yr by dmwalker