The Drake Equation Fallacy

The Drake equation!
Here on ATS I can safely assume most of you are more than familiar
with it. The video is an animated illustration of how Drake came up
with his hypothesis. Where in by considering the number of habitable
planets in the universe. To posit earth as the only one supporting life
can have the odds stacked against it. Frank Drake as the claim goes
listed all of the predictable questions scientists would need to answer.
And came up with the equation to estimate the number of detectable
civilizations in the universe.



All of the questions however failed to include one perfectly scientific
question. What if we are the product of a supreme being from outside
(not captured in) the universe? The fact that we have ancient information
already telling us that what is going on here on earth is THE BEGINNING.
If we are going to consider his equation at all it should at least have
some observable evidence to back it up. But it doesn't and it is a huge
fallacy to ignore timeline and the plan a supreme being may have for us
and the universe. The hypothesis doesn't even refute the previous
information and it matters not how old the information is. Or where
it comes from because it is authoritative information. There is a big
fat zero of evidence for life existing anywhere else in the universe.
And far more evidence of a supreme being giving us information that is
correct IMO.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Carl Sagan

Drakes equation fails.

a reply to: carsforkids

The drake equation is not a physical law but a probabilistic argument as a number of factors are unknown.

Not sure why you care about it in the first place though, given that you believe in a supreme being from outside (not captured in) the universe.

Or is this just a another science dissing thread?

originally posted by: carsforkids

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Carl Sagan

Wouldn't You need some "Extraordinary Evidence" for proof of a Supreme Being from Outside (not captured) the Universe?

Do You have some?

a reply to: carsforkids

The drake equation is just as accurate as any theory of some omnipotent moon god creating the universe.

Shouting out while flying by:

The Drake equation only exist if the universe exists as assumed.


Edit:

Someone evolved faster:

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: carsforkids

The drake equation is just as accurate as any theory of some omnipotent moon god creating the universe.

a reply to: moebius

Or is this just a another science dissing thread?

I hope it isn't perceived to be and I believe I pointed to the question
not considered as being perfectly scientific. By comparison of course.

Probability says the OP is wrong.

a reply to: ATruGod

Wouldn't You need some "Extraordinary Evidence" for proof of a Supreme Being from Outside (not captured) the Universe?

Do You have some?

Most likely none that you would agree to as evidence. And yet I see no
possible argument that there is far more, lets say arguable, evidence
for a supreme being than there is life else where in the universe.

a reply to: carsforkids

Drake's equation only takes into account physical realities that we presume to be true. Science doesn't presume a "creator", and even if it did, why would you assume said creator would have stopped at one "intelligent" creation? Can you put a statistical number on that? Of course not.

a reply to: Bluntone22

The drake equation is just as accurate as any theory of some omnipotent moon god creating the universe.

Well obviously I disagree with your announcement.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: ATruGod

Wouldn't You need some "Extraordinary Evidence" for proof of a Supreme Being from Outside (not captured) the Universe?

Do You have some?

Most likely none that you would agree to as evidence. And yet I see no
possible argument that there is far more, lets say arguable, evidence
for a supreme being than there is life else where in the universe.

There is far more evidence of life in the universe, hell we don't even need to look further than Mars, almost undeniable scientific evidence pointing at life (liquid and ice water, analytical data from probes and rovers etc) either currently exits or did exist on Mars. What's your evidence?

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: ATruGod

Wouldn't You need some "Extraordinary Evidence" for proof of a Supreme Being from Outside (not captured) the Universe?

Do You have some?

Most likely none that you would agree to as evidence. And yet I see no
possible argument that there is far more, lets say arguable, evidence
for a supreme being than there is life else where in the universe.

Building blocks for life seem to be everywhere... To think this would be the only planet to produce "Life" doesn't make a lot of sense with all the "Goldilock Planets" they are finding.

Life's Building Blocks Found on Surprising Meteorite

*shrugs*

Whats Your proof?

a reply to: Mach2

Drake's equation only takes into account physical realities that we presume to be true. Science doesn't presume a "creator", and even if it did, why would you assume said creator would have stopped at one "intelligent" creation? Can you put a statistical number on that? Of course not.

Physical realities? That with no physical evidence are presumed to be true?
Does science presume life on other planets? I'm not assume anything. I'm
also not discounting the previous information because of bias.

a reply to: carsforkids

So you are saying there is more evidence of a supreme being that no one has ever seen and who's belief system of "ancient knowledge" is entirely made up by humans wishing to control other humans than there is of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?

Aren't you just using a fairy story with no evidence as an excuse to undermine a scientific thought experiment?

As for this...

There is a big fat zero of evidence for life existing anywhere else in the universe

You do realise that if there is one habitable planet hosting intelligent life, in every galaxy (not star... galaxy) that we can see then the universe is teeming with life?

Bringing scale down a bit, our radio signals have probably reached about 200 light years out. The Milky Way is 200,000 light years across (approximately) - meaning there could be civilisations out there of similar age to ours, or a few hundred years in advance of us who's signals have travelled further, but we still won't have heard them because we've only really been listening (on frequencies that we have chosen, not on frequencies they may have chosen for about 60 years).

I'd also direct you to consider the WoW signal, and other SETI positives that - whilst not proven to be ET - may very well have been.

Lastly, your version of 'life' is based on the biochemistry we observe on this planet. There may very well be other types so alien to us that we simply wouldn't recognise it until we either meet it face to face, or it (or we) figure out that we shouldn't judge the universe by our standards. We may be the exceptional form of life to the cosmic rule, rather than the other way round.

For context

hips.hearstapps.com...

originally posted by: carsforkids
[...] What if we are the product of a supreme being from outside
(not captured in) the universe?[...]
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Carl Sagan

Well...?

a reply to: panoz77

There is far more evidence of life in the universe, hell we don't even need to look further than Mars, almost undeniable scientific evidence pointing at life (liquid and ice water, analytical data from probes and rovers etc) either currently exits or did exist on Mars. What's your evidence?

The conversation is inclusive of sentient life forms self aware conscious and intelligent.
That is what the drake equation is hypothesizing I believe.

a reply to: neformore

You do realise that if there is one habitable planet hosting intelligent life, in every galaxy (not star... galaxy) that we can see then the universe is teeming with life?

No I don't and I don't understand how you can? Without severely wanting to as your
motivation.

a reply to: carsforkids

Point of order. It is NOT scientific, to include a supernatural being as an answer. Science deals with the measurabl universe (or even universes). BUT an omisomething something deity (who has been shown to screw up too much to be omni anything) is not part of science. its part of faith. So if you want to make it a faith thing .Why not many deities?

originally posted by: panoz77
There is far more evidence of life in the universe, hell we don't even need to look further than Mars, almost undeniable scientific evidence pointing at life (liquid and ice water, analytical data from probes and rovers etc) either currently exits or did exist on Mars. What's your evidence?

That's not evidence of life on Mars. That's evidence of water, organic molecules, etc. I can show you a big bowl of piping hot chicken noodle soup with those same ingredients, and there won't be a bit of life in it.