The Drake Equation Fallacy

There is a man in Massachusetts, U.S.A., who as part of his work every day checks to find out if any messages have come in. Day after day, none do. For years now, none have. But he still checks regularly, and he is disappointed regularly. Is he unpopular? Is his answering machine broken?

Neither. He checks a machine, but it is not hooked up to a telephone line. It is a computer connected to a huge electronic ear that points up, away from our world, into the depths of outer space: a radio telescope. This man is helping a team of scientists to scan the stars for a message from intelligent extraterrestrials, beings from beyond our world.

Others, like him, have also been listening for 60 years now. In 1960 astronomer Frank Drake became the first man to listen with a radio telescope for signs of extraterrestrial intelligence (yes, the same Frank Drake of the Drake equation). Since then, man has, in effect, put his ears in space.

But after centuries of wondering and decades of searching, how close is man to an answer?

Extraterrestrials​—The Age-​Old Dream

Modern-day science-fiction writers did not invent the notion of extraterrestrials. Some 23 centuries ago, a Greek philosopher named Metrodorus taught that a universe containing merely one inhabited world would be as unlikely as a large field growing only one ear of corn. Lucretius, a Roman poet of the first century B.C.E., wrote that “in other parts of space there are other earths and various races of men.”

This teaching, called the plurality of worlds, was in disfavor in Christendom for many centuries. But from about 1700 to the early part of our own century, most educated people, including some of the greatest scientists in history, believed firmly in life on other worlds. In fact, one educator of the mid-1800’s was widely attacked when he dared to write a paper denying the doctrine.

People seemed eager to believe in extraterrestrials, even on the flimsiest of evidence. In 1835 a newspaper reporter wrote that astronomers had discovered life on the moon. He wrote that strange animals, exotic plants, and even little people with wings, hovering about and gesturing visibly, were all seen through a telescope! The circulation of his newspaper soared. Many continued to believe the tale even after it was exposed as a fraud.

Scientists were optimistic as well. In the late 1800’s, astronomer Percival Lowell was convinced that he could see a complex system of canals on the surface of the planet Mars. He mapped them out in detail and wrote books on the civilization that had constructed them. In France, the Academy of Sciences was so sure that there was life on Mars that it offered a reward to the first person who communicated with any extraterrestrials other than Martians.

Some proposed outlandish schemes to communicate with beings on nearby worlds, ranging from lighting huge fires in the Sahara Desert to planting geometrically shaped forests across Siberia. In 1899 an American inventor erected a mast topped with a copper ball and sent powerful electric pulses through it to signal the Martians. People’s hair stood on end, and lights glowed for 30 miles [50 km] around, but there was no answer from Mars.

Full of Hope

While the technology behind today’s search for life on other worlds may be new, one thing remains unchanged: Scientists are still confident that mankind is not alone in the cosmos. As astronomer Otto Wöhrbach wrote in the German newspaper Nürnberger Nachrichten: “There is hardly a natural scientist who would not say yes if asked if there was extraterrestrial life.” Gene Bylinsky, author of Life in Darwin’s Universe, put it this way: “Any day now, if radio astronomers are to be believed, a signal from the stars will flash across the unimaginable gulf of space to end our cosmic loneliness.”

Why are scientists so sure that life exists on other worlds? Their optimism starts with the stars. There are so many of them​—thousands of millions in our galaxy. Then the assumptions begin. Surely, many of those stars must also have planets circling them, and life must have developed on some of those worlds. Following that line of reasoning, astronomers have speculated that there are anywhere from thousands to millions of civilizations right here in our own galaxy!

You will probably agree, though, that it is better to have no hope at all than to lean on a false one. It is important for us to find out, then, if scientists are on solid ground when they assert that the universe is teeming with populated worlds. Which is the subject I discussed in my first comment in this thread. Just felt like sharing some background this time.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Jay-morris

Jesus Christ is documented historically and the Bible is a document.

And your saying they aren't is wrong.

That's false. The bible consists of non contemporary sources, assumed based on hearsay. It's just a bunch of claims, not a single historian contemporary to Jesus even mentioned him and none were even written until 20+ years after the events they describe. By this logic the Quran is a historical document as well along with the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

originally posted by: carsforkids
There is physical archaeological evidence all over the world that
the ancients you refer to as being " Primitive" were highly sophisticated!
For cripe sakes you aren't even being realistic with that BS. The whole
ancient aliens farce just takes the watchers in the book of Enoch and
morphs them in to aliens. I could go on by why should I. That statement
is a fallacy if not completely stupid. And you should know better.

There is no evidence that ancients were sophisticated, especially not the ones that wrote the bible. Read the old testament, it's mostly primitive nonsense that demonstrates pure ignorance of the world. All you have to do is read Leviticus in its entirety and it becomes painfully obvious that it did not come from any higher knowledge, it was written to reflect people's beliefs at the time, not to be historical fact.

I don't advocate ancient alien theory, I just don't buy the bible claims because they have never been backed up aside from the odd minor event here and there. Most historians agree that the bible is a religious compilation book of many stories from many authors and time periods, not a historical document. Most claims cannot be backed up and rely on hearsay.

That's not an argument. And how do you have evidence if you can't investigate you have no evidence.

I didn't claim there was evidence. I said that you were appealing to ignorance. Science is a work in progress, constantly adding to and building our knowledge. It would be different if scientists were capable of visiting those distant planets in other star systems and found no life on any of them.

See this is just more bias, proof of your indoctrination I would even
say. Everything we have that is written was written by humans.
All your documentations, " The origin of species " all inspired
writings. EVERYTHING! But you can't accept a book (that shows
CAUSE for all the pre existing mechanics of CREATION, that science
only uses to postulate a bunch of concocted nonsensical ideas from )
because it was written by humans.

This is pure nonsense. You are equating myth to modern scientific research. Just because something comes from humans, doesn't make it valid. Science is a method of testing, it's not just blind faith in old myths assumed to be true. LOL!

a reply to: Barcs

It's blind faith. You can talk to any person from any religon, and they will say why their religon is the real one. And all the time, their so called evidence is like this dudes evidence, which is not evidence at all

a reply to: Jay-morris

I explained why it was not evidence. I even gave you examples, but you ignored them.

Lol I read every word. I ignored nothing,

So God decided to make trillions of stars and planets, just for the sake of it!

Lol No those are your words!

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

Lol Not as stupid as what you're selling.

It's just a matter of time before we find life outside our planet.

Lol Hasn't happened not even close. However I do admire your faith.

Even a good chance we will find life in our own solar system.

Lol You're right, science should worry about categorizing all the life
on this planet. Before proving the Bible right again.

Because something cannot be fully explained, does not mean an old dude with a beard created everything lol

Lol Sure as hell doesn't mean he didn't.

Have you actually read the bible?

Lol Yes dear!

Off course it does not mean sh#t to you! Like I said, it's like talking to a brick wall!

Lol Mirror Mirror

Are you saying it's all peace and live in the bible? Seriously?

Lol Again your words

Why should I not mock God?

Lol For starters manners, ethics things you were obviously raised without.

He agrees slavery, he is sexist, anti gay, loves sacrifices, wants people to adore and lice him, if they don't, they will burn in hell. What would you call a human that had those traits? You would call them a sociopath!

Lol You're not gonna bait me with that stupid argument.

I suggest you actually read the bible! If you need to believe in a sociopathic God to help you sleep at night, then that's up to you. It's your life!

Lol Thank you! Now we can be friends!

a reply to: TzarChasm

And this is a much more reliable mathematical expression than the Drake equation? Am I keeping up so far?

Holy crap you caught me completely off guard. That's good, I appreciate
your humor. And I would say yes Tsarchasm you're following along nicely.
LMAO

a reply to: carsforkids

Lol Hasn't happened not even close. However I do admire your faith.

one simple question - why do you dismiss the entire premise of alien life ?

you ignored the previous question :

why would you set any variable in drakes equation to zero ?

so i ask that again too

next - you blithley ignore the explainations of what drakes equation actually is and its purpose

why ?

and last :

much of your " argument " seems to hinge on current ignorance

we are still discovering previously unknown celestial bodies in our own solar system - we now know of hundreds - in 1929 - pluto was only a theory - and we knew of less than half the jovian and saturnian moons we now know of

so - get a grip

a reply to: carsforkids

The OP doesn’t believe aliens exist, but believes a lifeform and it’s son, not from this planet, exist.

Sorry, but you believe in aliens and call it “god”.

a reply to: Barcs

By this logic the Quran is a historical document as well along with the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

Then as far as I'm concerned they are historical documents. To suggest they aren't is biased.

There is no evidence that ancients were sophisticated,

The argument for that is in plain view all over the earth.

This is pure nonsense.

And what you followed it with made so much more sense

Just because something comes from humans, doesn't make it valid. Science is a method of testing, it's not just blind faith in old myths assumed to be true. LOL!

Ya it pretty much is. Lol

a reply to: TerryDon79

Sorry, but you believe in aliens and call it “god”.

Yeah No!

a reply to: carsforkids

And you see cannot counter my arguments! You push them to one side and pretend you answered them!

Seriously! What's the point!

a reply to: carsforkids

Ok, give me scientic proof God exists?

a reply to: whereislogic

You will probably agree, though, that it is better to have no hope at all than to lean on a false one. It is important for us to find out, then, if scientists are on solid ground when they assert that the universe is teeming with populated worlds. Which is the subject I discussed in my first comment in this thread. Just felt like sharing some background this time.

Just so you know you aren't being totally ignored.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: carsforkids

Ok, give me scientic proof God exists?

No no you will first level the playing field by putting your
explanation pertaining to how life began first. I expect it to
make far more sense than what I believe. Your explanation
should be far more plausible according to your snooty attitude
and your persistence that so far is only getting more and more
redundant and therefore tiresome at best. Not to mention boring.

originally posted by: carsforkids

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: carsforkids

Ok, give me scientic proof God exists?

No no you will first level the playing field by putting your
explanation pertaining to how life began first. I expect it to
make far more sense than what I believe. Your explanation
should be far more plausible according to your snooty attitude
and your persistence that so far is only getting more and more
redundant and therefore tiresome at best. Not to mention boring.

I already answered this! No one knows for certain, but evidence points to evolution. In the bible, God made everything in 6 days. We know that to be rubbish.

Do you believe everything was made in 6 days?

a reply to: Jay-morris

You might as well argue with a wall.

It's very difficult to change the mind of a cult member, short of electro shock theropy, and an intense reprogramming regimen.

originally posted by: carsforkids
Then as far as I'm concerned they are historical documents. To suggest they aren't is biased.

Except historical documents have contemporary collaborating accounts and/or supporting archaeological evidence. If the Book of the Dead and Quran qualify as history, then why do you believe the bible instead? They can't all be historically accurate.

The argument for that is in plain view all over the earth.

Huh? Please demonstrate such. If you are referring to the pyramids, they weren't built by the people who wrote the Torah, in fact they were built more than a thousand years prior.

Just because something comes from humans, doesn't make it valid. Science is a method of testing, it's not just blind faith in old myths assumed to be true. LOL!

Ya it pretty much is. Lol

Thanks for proving that I am arguing with a child. Basically every response was, "Nu-uh!!" This is a big boy conversation, calling the scientific method blind faith is laughably stupid.

originally posted by: carsforkids
No no you will first level the playing field by putting your
explanation pertaining to how life began first. I expect it to
make far more sense than what I believe. Your explanation
should be far more plausible according to your snooty attitude
and your persistence that so far is only getting more and more
redundant and therefore tiresome at best. Not to mention boring.

That's not how it works, buddy. Burden of proof is on the positive claim, so if you say that a god exists, you need to demonstrate that this is the case. It is not reliant on skeptics coming up with alternate explanations, when your explanation is completely unfalsifiable.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

one simple question - why do you dismiss the entire premise of alien life ?

I often ignore questions when the answer should be obvious.
I'm sure I did answer somewhere in this thread. But I'll do it again
special for you.

Because the drake equation assumes and depends on a chronological
order of civilizations popping into existence that it knows absolutely
nothing about nor ever will. Nothing at all in anyway to even cast the
slightest doubt on the previous existing ( doesn't matter where the
information came from) information.

Hokey BS, lies and concocted fantasies and scientific bias aren't enough
what I believe.

Why is belief in a supreme being and creation attacked and hated so much?
The very mentioning of it in a public forum sends people spinning off the
handle with ridiculous hate and vicious attacks. Only to suggest far more
unscientific crap delusion that space aliens seeded the planet. When the
evidence so far has only confirmed the first three words of Genesis.

The truth is science will continue to prove one thing. The Bible
was right.

There you go amigo tear it up!

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: TerryDon79

Sorry, but you believe in aliens and call it “god”.

Yeah No!

‘fraid so. Deny it all you want, but you believe in aliens if you believe a “god” (or multiple “gods”) exists.

originally posted by: carsforkids
Because the drake equation assumes and depends on a chronological
order of civilizations popping into existence that it knows absolutely
nothing about nor ever will. Nothing at all in anyway to even cast the
slightest doubt on the previous existing ( doesn't matter where the
information came from) information.

The drake equation doesn't state anything like that.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Do you believe everything was made in 6 days?

Do you understand the definition of a creator God.
I have seen nothing to make me doubt it.

Gotta go drive truck amigos. See ya in about a month.
Around Christmas that none of you celebrate! LOL