On "Non-Supernatural Intelligent Design": Viable Epistemology/Probative Science Tool?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Mr. G, Aug 18, 2002.

  1. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,190
    The claim central to the position of advocates of the ET hypothesis is that aliens are(/were) visiting the Earth. To prove this, they must disprove the null hypothesis that aliens are(/were) not visiting the Earth. That is to say, they must produce something that can only be explained in terms of alien visitations, like an alien, or an artifact with extraterrestrial isotope ratios.

    Positivists say that the invisible and the non-existant look very much alike. Much as aliens and indisputable evidence of aliens.

    So how useful is non-supernatural intelligent design(alien version) as a probative tool? Can non-supernatural intelligent design theory(alien version) ever be considered an Epistomology so long as indesputable evidence that supports it's claim(s) remains absent?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Thor "Pfft, Rebel scum!" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,326
    Absolutly no relevnce what so ever, just wanted to get the topic to 2000 posts

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,190
    EEEKKK!!! Zombies walk amongst us!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    James, Einstein was a genius. The last genius we had before him was perhaps Newton, several century earlier. Even the great Newton didn't accomplish as much as Einstein. Newton was only active in science for a part of his life and then he took a managment position. Einstein was the quintessential scientist for all of his life. Einstein raised science to a whole new level, far beyond what the thinkers of his day were capable of and his theories have stood the test of time and are still valid today. No scientist since Einstein has made any leap to a next level. There are plenty of smart people in science and they are building on science in the bricks and mortar fashion, step by plodding step. Einstein's Unified Field Theory is the one that is going to pass the litmus test. If your scientists are believing in the chaos of the big bang theory and all those other ridiculous theory, then their conceptual thought is being somewhat retarded by fanciful imaginations.

    Einstein was a fairly prolific writer and if you read his books you will find that he expressed his opinions and beliefs with uncommon clarity. If you are studying physics then you should read Einstein in your free time, so that you can evaluate his work for yourself. Here are a few more exceptional book by Einstein;

    Ideas and Opinions--A.E.

    Out Of My Later Years--A.E.

    On Peace--A.E.

    The World As I See It--A.E.

    Einstein is going to be coming back in vogue before too long, as will be his Unified Field Theory, so if you begin reading him now, you will be in tune with the prevailing trend as logic is restored once again to theoretical physics.

    Mr.G., you are like the Japanese soldiers stranded on remote islands after WW11, continuing the war and living a life that made sense to them as the modern world passed them by.
     
  8. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,190
    Sure, John. Whatever you say: yet more laser-like analysis from a true visionary, no doubt.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Einstein seems to be a jesus-like figure for you. You know, cult of personality-wise.

    Maybe he was really an alien.
     
  9. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,190
  10. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    It's funny, as in strange, how you keep bringing up religion and quacky UFO sites all the time, Mr.G., while religiously avoiding discussing all presented evidence that doesn't conform to your creationist theories.

    Your isolationist view will have no effect on people who think about reality. The trend is towards a more open and honest society and that is something that cannot be stopped. Those who thrived on secrecy have seen firsthand how debilitating that simple-minded policy is for society and the environment and they are among those who wish for more openness. If you read any of the articles from the links I posted you would have understood that. By crying UFO's! and Religion! all the time, while consistently refusing to discuss reality, you advance the discussion no further. People are even starting to run for congress on the disclosure ticket;

    http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/09/25/37217.html

    If you want to discuss intelligently, why don't you review some of those evidence I presented and pick one at a time to either disprove scientifically, or admit that they are legitimate. I imagine it must be tough to grapple with the reality that your argument for the Ultimate Creation Theory and Darwinian Theory of Evolution are just as flawed as the 'God did it' creationism belief, but your personal obstinacy can in no way prevent the supremacy of the Unified Field Theory.
     
  11. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,190
    John MacNeil:
    Since your reading comprehension is awfully selective, here's another excerpt: "....it is the burden of the claimant to prove his claim. In the case of UFOs the skeptic would assert that the object was unidentified. This claim is proved by default, because nobody knows what it was. It is for those that wish to claim that it was an alien space ship to prove that it was (1) a space ship and (2) alien. .... The burden of proof falls upon the claimant, not those skeptical of the claim."

    Buy a vowel. We're the skeptics, you're the claimant. It isn't our burden to prove your evidence is not evidence for whatever it is you are claiming today. It is your burden to prove your evidence is evidence that proves your claim, to our satisfaction--at which point we instantaneously lose our skepticism and you find happiness.

    You claim aliens brought humans to this planet. Prove that aliens exist, then prove that they brought us here. No rhetorical anecdotes. No obfuscating indirections and redirections. Just present to us cold, hard, unambiguous, smoking-gun evidence as your proof.

    Do the same for your claims that the Standard Cosmological Model is dead (you'll need really serious mathematics to do this), that some misshappen skulls are not Homo Sapiens, and that Einstein is the center of the intellectual universe--to name but a few.

    As far as I/we can tell from all your evidence, you've done nothing more than state your opinions--they can be nothing else if not accompanied by the kind of evidence that will change my/our mind(s) (your stated goal).

    I'm sure you have good reasons for believing what you do. So far, I don't find your reasons compelling enough to cause me to change my mind. Now that may be a defect of my own, as you've accused, or it is a defect in your estimation of your own good reasoning. Either way, it's just a couple more opinions thrown into the mix.
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,550
    John,

    Yes, Einstein was a genius. But so were Bohr, Rutherford, Feynman, Maxwell, Ampere, Boltzmann, Fermi, Dirac and many many others. Why put Einstein on a pedestal above the rest?

    Also, need I remind you yet again that Einstein didn't manage to come up with a unified field theory? What is this non-existent theory you keep referring to? It is a fantasy, nothing more.
     
  13. ted_roe Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    32
    OK John and Mr. G back to your corners

    UFO is referred to now, in my organization anyway, as UAP or unidentified aerial phenomena and defined as " the visual stimulus that provokes a sighting report of an object or light seen in the skiy, the appearance and/or flight dynamics of which do not suggest a logical, conventional flying object and which remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making both a full technical identification as well as a common-sense identification, if one is possible". - Haines, 1980.

    So Mr. G you are correct, but not entirely. The issue really is that there has to be a category of observation like this to begin with. There really are observations and incidents that have at their root a phenomena with this definition. This is not a statement of misidentification, it is a definition of a particular category of aerial phenomena. This doesn't rule out unusual natural phenomena, rarely or never documented and poorly understood or never encountered before. But it does include lights and objects that can not be categorized any other way.

    Further, though there is no hard, cold evidence, as you put it, of ET incursion into the Earth domain there are many indicators that some of the UAP that we study are associated with a very high degree of intelligence, deliberate flight control, and advanced energy management. (Haines, 1979, 1983, 1993, 9194, 1999). Others have done the same (Good, 1988; Hall, 1964, 2001; Ruppelt, 1956; Hynek, 1972; COMETA 1999; Guzman, 2001;Rodriguez 2002) Further we have data from across the entire history of powered flight that demonstrates commonalties in description and characteristics that not only should not be ignored, they strongly suggest that some of the reported objects and supporting radar data and witness testimony are indicative of technology and intelligence.

    Our organization is not concerned with the ET debate though I find it very interesting. NARCAP is concerned with specific effects on avionics systems, crew physiology, cockpit resource management and safe flying procedures. The chief of the Aviation Safety Office at NASA Ames Research Center, Brian Smith is quoted on our homepage - he is a participating advisor along with several other current and former NASA scientists and administrators...

    The fact is that while the debate rages, there is a very real phenomena demonstrating very unusual qualities and manifesting globally. We have case files from official sources including the CAA of the UK, the Chilean Air Force, the US Government and a host of other sources. The three main incident data bases maintained by the FAA and the NTSB, including the NASA administrated ASRS have incidents in their files involving UAP. The director of the ASRS, Linda Connell is on record in this regard and acknowledges UAP reports in the ASRS incident database - a confidential database, by the way.

    While not all UAP are ET, those who believe that no UAP are ET should look much closer at the information from credible sources - like various government agencies... say the National Security Agency www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/ufo.htm Take a look at the Tehran, Iran documentation from the DIA....

    Anyway, I am not offering proof, I don't know. But I know better than to say "definately not".

    What does this have to do with the topic of the thread, well... it seems that these observations of flying objects predate the modern era by hundreds of years and probably millenia. Commentary regarding descriptions of aerial phenomena from 3,000 BC are consistent with those in our own case files. Our own myths of how we came to be describe us as "created".... The presence of irriduceably complex systems within our physiology - like the clotting sequence suggest that either our knowledge of the evolution of protien systems is incomplete or there are "modular" components in our physiology( Behe, 1997). There is a debate regarding these things, not a dismissal.... This debate will lead to a better model of reality, perhaps one that none of us can recognize, yet.
     
  14. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    ted

    there are many indicators that some of the UAP that we study are associated with a very high degree of intelligence, deliberate flight control, and advanced energy management.

    they strongly suggest that some of the reported objects and supporting radar data and witness testimony are indicative of technology and intelligence.

    While not all UAP are ET, those who believe that no UAP are ET should look much closer at the information from credible sources


    I get the strong impression you and/or NARCAP are convinced a link exists between UAP and ET. That would of course seriously damage you and your organizations credibility.

    Are your comments representative of all personnel working for NARCAP ? Are your organizations' priorities geared towards attempting to link ET with UAP ? How is NARCAP funded ?
     
  15. ted_roe Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    32
    Q

    "I get the strong impression you and/or NARCAP are convinced a link exists between UAP and ET. That would of course seriously damage you and your organizations credibility."

    From the point of view of NARCAP, the extraterrestrial debate is immaterial. We do not presume they are ET and we do not presume they are not. It is a fact that some UAP have characteristics that suggest technology and intelligence.

    From my point of view, a personal point of view, the debate is very interesting and I have a birds eye view. As someone who is regularly involved with information and research around the topic of UAP I am exposed to a lot of good information regarding the entire range of UAP including that category that seems so interesting to all of us. My contribution to this debate is based on that exposure. My suggestion is that the matter is not resolved, the definitive work has not been done and that some UAP have characteristics that seem to demonstrate technology and intelligence. I don't think that hurts our credibility even if it does seem to support the believers. It is a simple fact. We certainly aren't alone in that perspective. I can name several official organizations belonging to various governments that will say the same thing.

    Allow me to point out that our research includes UAP that do not seem to have characteristics of technology and intelligence......

    "Are your comments representative of all personnel working for NARCAP?"

    With regards to those comments about NARCAP and its mission and staff, yes. With respect to referenced research and UAP data, yes. With respect to the topic of this thread - no. I am simply participating in the forum.


    Are your organizations' priorities geared towards attempting to link ET with UAP ?

    No, and I think a review of our site will support that contention.
    www.narcap.org

    How is NARCAP funded ?
    Privately.
     
  16. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    Einstein does deserve to be put on a pedestal. He was a mental giant compared to all those other scientists that you named, James. In his lifetime he was never accorded the respect which he deserved, and yet he was the most famous person of his times. He received one Nobel Prize, for his description of the photoelectric effect, but he never received a nobel for either his special or general theory of relativity, both of which are foundation theory of modern science.

    His Unified Field Theory was never given a mathematical completion, but he stated often enough that what he believed was that the universe was a complete system and not the result of chaos. That means that the universe is comprised of a single source field that emanates from the center of the universe and encompasses all matter in the universe. All of the scientific evidence that has been gathered to date agrees with that assessment, and no scientific evidence agrees with the Ultimate Creation Theory.

    The people who are steering belief back to a reality base are the professionals in science, like this woman;

    --"Imagine seeing a bullet shot through a sheet of material only to have the material instantly "heal" behind the bullet! Remember, this is not science fiction. Self healing materials actually exist, and LaRC scientists are working to unravel their secrets. What we did at NASA-Langley was basically dissect that material to answer the question, 'how does it do that?'"--Anna McGowan, Program Manager, NASA

    www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/morphingmetals.html

    The above website, where that quote came from, is officially recommended to undergraduate students by their physics professor at Princeton University.
     
  17. ted_roe Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    32
    back to the topic

    The thread is about whether or not Alien intervention is an acceptable argument for a creationist point of view. I think better arguments for this lie with Drake, Asimov, Sullivan, Bracewell, Sagan, etc.... In the first place it is most likely a mathematical certainty that there are other civilizations, technically advanced, within our own galaxy.

    Unfortunately the stretch between that fact and irreducibly complex systems and/or other evidence of "creation" within our own physiology is too far to span at this point. We first must prove that there are ET, that they come here and/or came here regularly during critical points in our evolution, that evidence within our physiology exists of manipulation or creation, that this physiological evidence points towards the ET in question, etc. So unless we can discuss the matter with "them" directly, it will be a long and difficult process to arrive at this knowledge with any certainty. Of course we can be suspicious, and we can learn all we can about the reality we occupy.
     
  18. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    I don't know if you read all ten page of this thread, Ted, but if you did I'm sure you would find that my position throughout has been consistently to adhere to the belief in physics. Some of my discussion has reiterated my view that the Standard Cosmological Model (the big bang!), which I refer to as the Ultimate Creation Theory, is not a viable theory for the organization of the universe. I've also disputed Darwinian Theory of Evolution, and shown proof that it, too, can no longer be viewed as a viable theory. As I have not presented any evidence in support of, nor any evidence to indicate, an alien presence, I do not believe that this thread should be addressing the subject of possible alien presence on our planet at this time. However, Mr.G. keeps bringing up the subject of aliens and UFO's for speculative and diversionary reasons.
     
  19. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    ted

    I asked:

    Are your organizations' priorities geared towards attempting to link ET with UAP ?

    You said:

    No, and I think a review of our site will support that contention. We do not presume they are ET and we do not presume they are not.

    Then I would presume this claim is yours if not NARCAP:

    While not all UAP are ET

    Here, you've clearly stated ET exists. What evidence has confirmed to you that UAP are ET ?
     
  20. ted_roe Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    32
    John, I am not critical of your position in this nor am I swayed by Mr G's assertions.

    I feel that it is difficult to create an argument about whether or not a non-supernatural intelligence is responsible for our existance without making some kind of case for the existance of that intelligence. It isn't quite enough to have some origins of life scientists pointing at an elephant in the living room.....

    Michael Behe addressed the idea of creationism versus evolution by pointing out that some components of not only human physiology but of other life forms as well seem to have irreducibly complex systems that are not easily explained by current models of evolution. Examples include the mechanism that drives flagellum, the clotting sequence, and a couple of other seeming anomalies. He pointed out that while certain structures like celia are well understood by function, the evolution of these structures is not understood at all. While he strongly suggested that a "creator" was a possible source of these anomalies, he didn't commit to who or what he felt was responsible.

    So getting back to who or what could have played a role in all this, well, I don't think the answer lies with examining UAP. Our current understanding of UAP is too rudimentary at this point.

    With respect to the most correct cosmological model, there is a debate regarding whether or not the Big Bang ever happened.... it is only a model of how things might have happened, and it seemed to work in many ways but not all ways. Like Newtonian physics. To address these inconsistencies, new theories are employed and some are a bit radical - like suggesting that we were created or that somehow a "nonsupernatural intelligence" is responsible for our presence. But "radical" is only the relationship between the theory and the current paradigm. It is radical because it is a minority position. The real question is "Does it work?" and "How can we tell we are correct?".

    The idea that there is a unifying principal behind the function of reality is probably a correct one but our understanding of what that principal is and how it came to be is going to change, probably many times. I am happy to give Einstein credit for making it to high enough ground to suspect that there is a unifying principal. Some would suggest that principal is the Zero-point, or the basic energy field that reality arises from. Others have other viewpoints.

    Paradigms exist in science that are not based so much on fact as consensus and agreement (bias). The consensus and agreement in 17th century France was that it was impossible for stones to fall from the sky. When, in the face of irrefuteable evidence, that paradigm was undermined the response was niether immediate nor unanimous. Rocks falling from the sky was not consistent with understandings of physics at that time. No one knew about space, that it is a gravity-free vacuum, that it is filled with rocks and debris that are sometimes captured by Earths gravitational field.

    The same argument applies to UAP as well as the debate over creationism vs evolution. It took four hundred years to get the Catholic Church to apologize for its egregious treatment of Galileo and other scientists. The transition was slow and went from burning thinkers and scientists alive to the Pope suggesting that "not all scriptures should be taken literally". Curiously enough, the Vatican position is that there are extraterrestrial intelligences, they do visit Earth and they are probably more spiritually advanced than we are - according to Father Balducci - Chief Demonologist of the Vatican....

    Anyway, perhaps the question of evolution vs creationism is better applied to the history and condition of knowledge rather than our physical existance.....
     
  21. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    John day-dreams:

    I'm sure you would find that my position throughout has been consistently to adhere to the belief in physics.

    Perhaps, but your understanding of physics is in no way representative of your beliefs. You've shown time and again on this and other threads complete ignorance of scientific methods and terminologies in various categories. And although members have gone to great lengths to show you your errors and contradictions, you refuse to listen and continue to spout pseudo-babble.
     
  22. ted_roe Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    32
    Q

    The entire sentence read: "While not all UAP are ET, those who believe that no UAP are ET should look much closer at the information from credible sources...."

    My point is that there is no basis for a certainty that no UAP represent incursions by ET. Those who entertain that certainty perhaps would not be so certain if they looked more closely at some UAP observations and incidents. I, for one, am not at all certain that no UAP represent ET, and to the extent that my organization is directly involved with the subject matter - well - we are not certain that no UAP represent ET, either. The debate is far from closed and though we are not directly concerned with it we are interested in all potential sources of UAP. Frankly, ET is a potential source of UAP.
     
  23. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    ted

    The entire sentence read: "While not all UAP are ET, those who believe that no UAP are ET should look much closer at the information from credible sources...." My point is that there is no basis for a certainty that no UAP represent incursions by ET.

    Yeah, I got the point. However, you began the sentence with, "While not all UAP are ET." This is clearly a claim that you or your organization have confirmed some UAP are ET. What evidence do you have ? Where are these ET ?
     

Share This Page