Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

SETI with a Twist — The Search for Intelligence Continues

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Normally one would expect a story such as this one to be in the National Enquirer. However, in this case, the story presents some interesting features which may have ramifications for the scientific application of ID.
In this case, the Russian scientist is claiming that back in 1908 an ET deliberately flew their spacecraft into a large meteorite to protect our planet. The crash took place in what is called the Tunguska site, somewhere in Siberia. According to Wikipedia, the impact was probably equivalent to a 10-15 megaton nuke. Pretty powerful for 1908. You can see a photo in the Wiki link.

According to the Foxnews report, “Dr. Yuri Labvin, president of the Tunguska Spatial Phenomenon Foundation, insists that an alien spacecraft sacrificed itself to prevent a gigantic meteor from slamming into the planet above Siberia on June 30, 1908.” And here’s where things get interesting. Apparently Labvin has uncovered some artifacts along a river bed at the site.

“It was not until many years later that a Siberian scientist set up an expedition to the place of the meteorite’s crash. They searched carefully through the river banks and found unusual quartz boards
Mr. Lavbin states that such solid stones do not exist on our planet Earth. He told of an experiment that was done on the crystals: scientists tried to put some of the same drawing that were on the stones initially with a sophisticated laser machine.

How surprised they were to realize that the laser (that usually cuts metal objects into pieces) managed to put just some faint stripes, barely visible. The stones, have an entire system of different lines and circles on them. Scientists suppose that the stones used to be a part of the navigational system of a spaceship. All stones united form a map, which they could have used to cruise through the Universe.” (From the MINA news story

“But Labvin thinks quartz slabs with strange markings found at the site are remnants of an alien control panel, which fell to the ground after the UFO slammed into the giant rock.”

“We don’t have any technologies that can print such kind of drawings on crystals,” Labvin told the Macedonian International News Agency. “We also found ferrum silicate that can not be produced anywhere, except in space.”(From Foxnews story)

So, apparently these crystals displayed markings can not be printed by any known technology we humans posses and which must have features that natural means wouldn’t produce either. There are some interesting applications for ID here, I think.

Are these natural phenomenon or intelligently caused. If natural, how and under what conditions did nature do it? If intelligently caused, then when was it done, how and by whom? If these crystals really have just been lying there since 1908, then given the technologies of the time, how might humans have done it? If no known technology of the time could have done it, then how was it done? Is this an intelligently designed hoax, a real artifact from an alien intelligence, or a natural phenomenon? And, how might we examine these artifacts to determine that?

If these artifacts are the result of intelligent cause, what would make the process for making that determination different from doing the same thing for biological systems?

Comments
I suspect you are right, Frost.CannuckianYankee
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT
Judging by those pictures it is ridiculous to get excited about some quartz rocks that look very terrestrial. As how they can claim that we can carve into them similar patterns and designs is ridiculous and absurd. I suspect I could recreate those in about a week with a chisel. I say they are man made artifacts - quartz stones carved by native people then after they got board of them they were thrown into the river bed.Frost122585
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT
Herb: "And it would great if an expert were to apply the principles of CSI here, but that’s above my pay grade. However, I’m sure people have been able to recognize writing systems more or less by inspection, long before CSI was defined." I found the 3rd picture more revealing than the others. It shows a repetitive triangular pattern. I wonder if it may be the impression of some triangular type objects, which pressed up against the crystals over long periods of time - sort of like a non-biological fossil. There are all sorts of questions here: Could it be an impression of a natural object? Could it be markings made by an intelligent being? Could the crystals have been present in their current form before the explosion? Did the explosion cause the results we see in the crystals? Did aliens crash into a commet, leaving remnants of their spaceship behind? Could it all be an elaborate hoax? If it is an example of CSI, I hope we're prepared for the implications. I found the report of the initial explosion in 1908 quite interesting. While the explosion caused daylight in London at 11:00pm, some Englishmen were able to find time to read a book without electricity, and to play a game of football. How convenient.CannuckianYankee
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
NSM, Fair enough. I don't know enough about quartz or whatever material this is to tell if it's natural. I just haven't seen anything natural which looks quite like this. And it would great if an expert were to apply the principles of CSI here, but that's above my pay grade. However, I'm sure people have been able to recognize writing systems more or less by inspection, long before CSI was defined.herb
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
@ Herb "How could those patterns be produced by natural processes??" Well that's the question at hand, really. I'd suggest that we don't know enough about the potential natural processes to give a definitive answer. "The stones look like they could be covered with some sort of hieroglyphics, however." This is an entirely different thing. That they might look like hieroglyphics depends largely on one's frame of reference. To use the design inference, we need information that is both specified and complex. The symbols might be complex, but how would we determine their specificity?NSM
May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
There are some better images of the "stones" about 1/3 of the way down this page: http://cronicasubterranea.blogspot.com/2009/02/tunguska-1908-nave-espacial.html Now I'm not so sure about the spaceship hypothesis. The stones look like they could be covered with some sort of hieroglyphics, however. How could those patterns be produced by natural processes??herb
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT
"I would think though that ID proponents argue that the imperfect replicators are incapable of producing specified complexity" I don't think that the ID proponents have summarily ruled out the presence of an intervention outside of natural causes to explain the complexity that exists despite the imperfection in the replicating process. However, this obviously has nothing to do with crystals, so it's a moot point. Design detection as I understand it, does not necessarily detect an intervetion outside of natural processes - such a detection would require a combining of evidence with metaphysical meddlings. Design detection does, however, require recognizable patterns that would lead one to ask the (not necessarily metaphysical) questions about the possibility of non-natural intervention. If this could apply to the crystals, then it could apply to biological systems as well. When I say "non-natural," however, I don't necessarily mean "supernatural." It could be an intervention from a contingent sentient being, such as a human or alien. However, I wouldn't summarily rule out supernatural intervention. The key here is in how we apply this same process to biological systems without jumping to conclusions in our metaphysics. That's what I seem to understand is the main contention in this whole issue between Darwinists and others. But I'm no scientist, so my opinion doesn't really count much. Incidentally, my objection to BVZs post at #7 was to the first paragraph about biological systems. It didn't seem to follow that since biological systams are imperfect replicators, that this is evidence for evolution through RM + NS. I think that design implies intervention when the replication process breaks down to the brink of gross mutation, rather than functional organization. So a design model can also explain imperfect replication. It is not exclusive to RM + NS. I'm not saying that there's necessarily evidence for this alternative, I just don't know. But it seems that we shouldn't rule out all possibilities. The second paragraph about crystals, just didn't make any sense to me at all, so I pretty much jumped over it. It's reasonable to suggest that the same (or a similar) methodology that detects potential design in these crystals, ought to be the same (or similar)methodology to detect potential design in biological systems. And again, I don't know exactly what that methodology would be. Darwinists, I think, believe that ID theorists are making methodological assumptions about the similarities between the two processes (man made ID detection vs. biological ID detection), which render the detection of potential design in biological systems meaningless, because obviously biological systems are different than man-made systems like lines drawn on crystals. However, I could say the same thing about Darwinists; that they have made methodological assumptions about the differences. What's different, after all between complex man-made objects and complex biological organisms? Don't they both involve the manipulation of matter? And should't we be able to detect in complex patterns when manipulation of matter is intentional, and when it is not? And therein lies the key. RM + NS does nothing intentional, really. It's a blind process without a goal except for "survival": yet, what Behe and Demski and others are telling us is in complex biological systems, seems to be the result of intentional manipulation of matter (and I realize that's a rather inadequate description of what is really going on). Who's right about this? I think that's a legitimate question that no one seems to be clearly asking at this point. How would we be able to satisfactorily answer it? I think Mr. Dembski has been answering it for some time in his writings, but they are being rejected by the Darwinists. That's to be expected, I guess.CannuckianYankee
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
@ DonaldM: "What it applies to is how can we detect intelligent design (if there is any), in the stones presented by Labvin?" Presumably you could detect design by calculating the stones' complex specified information and applying some kind of explanatory filter. I read somewhere that this a good and rigorous way of detecting design. It shouldn't be too difficult for you to find people capable of performing such an analysis.Reg
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
@ DonaldM I surmised as much from the post, which is why I'm confused by BVZ's argument. "Assuming (as the question requires) that the crystals are known to be designed, we have no known route for development without design." This made my head spin. Why does the question require the assumption of design, when whether or not it is a product of design is the question at hand? "They don’t seem to be...imperfect replicators." Well obviously there'd be no imperfect replicators. They're rocks? They don't replicate at all. I guess I'm just trying to understand the objection, and make sure I'm not missing something obvious in his/her argument. To address the question you posed though: I would think that to infer design, we'd first have to define the natural processes that could create the markings on the crystals (and our understanding here is probably pretty poor). Maybe there's a giant laser at the centre of the universe?NSM
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
NSM
I have no idea how this applies to UFO’s. Why would someone argue that the existence of imperfect replicators rejects design?
It doesn't apply to UFO's. What it applies to is how can we detect intelligent design (if there is any), in the stones presented by Labvin?DonaldM
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
@ Cannuckian Yankee Am I not smart enough to follow BVZ's argument, or does it not make sense? If biological processes were perfect replicators, RM + NS would be an impossible mechanism. I would think though that ID proponents argue that the imperfect replicators are incapable of producing specified complexity. I have no idea how this applies to UFO's. Why would someone argue that the existence of imperfect replicators rejects design?NSM
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
In his novel Against the Day, Thomas Pynchon describes the aftermath of the Tunguska Event:
“For a while after the Event, crazed Raskol’niki ran around in the woods, flagellating themselves and occasional onlookers who got too close, raving about Tchernobyl, the destroying star known as Wormwood in the book of Revelation. Reindeer discovered again their ancient powers of flight, which had lapsed over the centuries since humans began invading the North. Some were stimulated by the accompanying radiation into an epidermal luminescence at the red end of the spectrum, particularly around the nasal area. Mosquitoes lost their taste for blood, acquiring one instead for vodka, and were observed congregating in large swarms at local taverns. Clocks and watches ran backward. Although it was summer, there were brief snowfalls in the devastated taiga, and heat in general tended to flow unpredictably for a while. Siberian wolves walked into churches in the middle of services, quoted passages from the Scriptures in fluent Old Slavonic, and walked peaceably out again. They were reported to be especially fond of Matthew 7:15, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” Aspects of the landscape of Tierra del Fuego, directly opposite the Stony Tunguska on the globe, began to show up in Siberia—sea ernes, gulls, terns, and petrels landing in the branches of fir trees, swooping to grab fish out of the streams, taking a bite, screaming with distaste, and throwing them back. Granite cliffs rose sheer and unexpected out of the forest. Oceangoing ships unmanned by visible crews, attempting to navigate the shallow rivers and creeks, ran aground . . .”
Dave Wisker
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
So let me get this straight. Because biological systems are imperfect replicators, this automatically implies that evolution dunnit? I don't get how anyone can so swiftly come to that conclusion. Are there not other options? How about devolution? Could not biological sysems as we now see them, have once been more perfect replicators? And what do you mean by "known possible?" It's either known or just possible isn't it?CannuckianYankee
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
Alien-of-the-gaps .critiacrof
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
I think the problem is the link in post 3 titled "Here's a better look at the stones".herb
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
Your link in your comment. Here is what I think you were trying to post: http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/6868/56/"uoflcard
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
nullasalus: which link. I just checked and they all seem to work fine?DonaldM
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
If these artifacts are the result of intelligent cause, what would make the process for making that determination different from doing the same thing for biological systems?
Biological systems are known to be imperfect replicators, which gives them a known possible route of development through biological evolution. Assuming (as the question requires) that the crystals are known to be designed, we have no known route for development without design. They don't seem to be (or have been) imperfect replicators.BVZ
May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT
DonaldM, your link does not work.nullasalus
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
Scheesman: That may well be right. But the point here is how to explain the markings on the stones and how to go about determining natural or intelligently causes. That is the reason I started the thread. Here's a better look at the stones. Its possible more like this have been found, and possible more will be. What sort of pattern would need to emerge to confidently assert intelligent cause. And then, was it by humans or some alien and how would we tell?DonaldM
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
Now the ravings of a crank ufologist are classified under "Intelligent Design"? That's weak.Reg
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
It's probably just varieties of shocked quartz. The linked article had only one tiny picture I could see, and it was no Star Trek control panel. The Tunguska event has been quite well explained as an air-burst meteor or comet.SCheesman
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
Cool. Normally I don't go in for these types of stories, but this one looks legit. I'd like to see an ID expert put Dr. Labvin's evidence to the test and maybe get to the bottom of the Tunguska mystery.herb
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
Is there a difference between Fox News and the National Enquirer?Legendary1
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply