It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Drake Equation Fallacy

page: 12
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: whereislogic

I have to say it. Your knowledge of this topic is phenomenal.



Your credibility just went down the crapper.
edit on 11 5 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
It's illogical to think that random chance (which the Drake equation draws from) is more likely for universal creation rather than an intelligent guiding Force. The immense order in cosmology, biology, geology, and so on, indicates there are precise mathematically predictable Laws that keep everything going. Laws do not come to be by random chance, they are created with purpose by something intelligent.

Drake's equation draws off the assumption that all matter came to be by accident. All evidence points to an intelligent faculty that organized the universe. If randomness were responsible, then the equations that we discover would also be random, but there are so meticulous and precise we are compelled to believe it was due to a precise Intelligence currently above our comprehension.


Drake equation is a probability theory, it doesn't assume "random chance" for everything. It assumes the universe is huge. Another theist epic fails trying to attack an equation that just tries to give an estimate for something.

Why are theists ALWAYS in attack mode? They literally fight everything tooth and nail if it's not the bible or in support of it. Give it a rest.
edit on 11 5 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




Your credibility just went down the crapper.


I wasn't aware I had any.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 02:56 PM
link   
While we are debating the merits of the Drake equation, the Fermi paradox deserves some attention also.


The Fermi paradox, named after Italian-American physicist Enrico Fermi, is the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial civilizations elsewhere in the Milky Way galaxy and various high estimates for their probability

Although he was not the first to consider this question, Fermi's name is associated with the paradox because of a casual conversation in the summer of 1950 with fellow physicists Edward Teller, Herbert York and Emil Konopinski. While walking to lunch, the men discussed recent UFO reports and the possibility of faster-than-light travel. The conversation moved on to other topics, until during lunch Fermi allegedly said suddenly, "But where is everybody?" (although the exact quote is uncertain).


en.m.wikipedia.org...

So why are these ET types playing hard to get?



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




So why are these ET types playing hard to get?


If they exist and are capable of interstellar travel/communication, I don't think they care enough to bother.

I look at it this way, we see here on earth that life exists where ever it can... in fact we find many times that it exists in places previously thought impossible. I think the same is going to be true everywhere through out the universe. That I think makes the possibility of other intelligent quite high.. the question is would we be interesting or intelligent enough that they would want to talk to us?

People tend to be hubris enough to think we are highly intelligent and the pinnacle of evolution. Most people wouldn't consider trying to have a conversation with a dumb goat, maybe we are the goat to an ET. BTW goats are delicious, but going light years for a kebab doesn't seem very intelligent.

-t



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Another theist epic fails trying to attack an equation that just tries to give an estimate for something.


I am pointing out a fundamental flaw in his assumption that there was no intelligent designer involved in the process. This universe is 100% possible because it was intended by an omniscient unstoppable Force. You suppose this logic is an epic fail because you do not consider things outside your current bounds, and view the universe and its creation as an unintelligent incident. Which is absolutely absurd considering that you yourself are a rational thinking human being capable of intelligent thought and action.



Why are theists ALWAYS in attack mode?


I'm not in attack mode, I am just pointing out the extensive faith required to keep an atheistic viewpoint.
edit on 5-11-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
Another theist epic fails trying to attack an equation that just tries to give an estimate for something.


I am pointing out a fundamental flaw in his assumption that there was no intelligent designer involved in the process. This universe is 100% possible because it was intended by an omniscient unstoppable Force. You suppose this logic is an epic fail because you do not consider things outside your current bounds, and view the universe and its creation as an unintelligent incident. Which is absolutely absurd considering that you yourself are a rational thinking human being capable of intelligent thought and action.



Why are theists ALWAYS in attack mode?


I'm not in attack mode, I am just pointing out the extensive faith required to keep an atheistic viewpoint.


Why does it have to be a God? Why, for thousands of years, we have put our faith in do many God?

Let's say it is intelligently designed. That does not mean it was a God, esp from a God from one of the many religons around the world, which are so obviously made up.



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Jay-morris




Let's say it is intelligently designed. That does not mean it was a God,


How else would you refer to the being who designed and created the universe?

You're being silly! What do you wanna call 'em STEVE? lol


edit on 6-11-2019 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 04:38 AM
link   
a reply to: carsforkids




How else would you refer to the being who designed and created the universe?


a game developer ?



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 05:03 AM
link   

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




Let's say it is intelligently designed. That does not mean it was a God,


How else would you refer to the being who designed and created the universe?

You're being silly! What do you wanna call 'em STEVE? lol



How do you know we are not in a simulation? How do you know this was not all designed in a lab by higher intelligent beings? How do you know that this is not all natural? I could go on and on.

The problem is, you think intelligent design, and you straight away think a bloke in a beard who loves us and made us in his own image. Yet, there is absolutly no evidence that this is the case.

If we are intelligent beings, chances are there are more advanced intelligent brings out there, in this universe or another.

But, this is just theories. You do not know, I do not know, no one knows!

And you did not answer my question. Did God make everything in six days?



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 05:12 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly




a game developer ?


Lol Alright that's fair.



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 05:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Jay-morris




The problem is, you think intelligent design, and you straight away think a bloke in a beard who loves us and made us in his own image. Yet, there is absolutly no evidence that this is the case.


The problem is your hate for the idea of a Supreme Creator Being simply
because you can't separate the idea from any religious connotations.
Even tho the idea of an intelligent Creator is the most plausible.

So God doesn't have a religion men do!



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 05:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TzarChasm

It's an equation without a solution.

Solve for X

A x 3B + 4C - 9D x 2E = X

Where A = 3


the drake equation was written to figure out a hypothetical estimation, a possible number of planets which exhibit properties known to sustain life. the question is not about how life happens, it is about how life persists and survives.

Nothing can persist if it does not begin. So you are wrong that the DE is not about life beginning, it is. And we have literally zero data about life persisting other than Earth. Might as well ask a first grader to pick a number between 0 and 100 and use those numbers.



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 11:03 AM
link   

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




The problem is, you think intelligent design, and you straight away think a bloke in a beard who loves us and made us in his own image. Yet, there is absolutly no evidence that this is the case.


The problem is your hate for the idea of a Supreme Creator Being simply
because you can't separate the idea from any religious connotations.
Even tho the idea of an intelligent Creator is the most plausible.

So God doesn't have a religion men do!





Well, it's obvious, and evidence points to religon being man made, and there is no evidence of a God, so why should I believe in a God?



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
I am pointing out a fundamental flaw in his assumption that there was no intelligent designer involved in the process.


That is a lie. Origin of the universe is not factored into the equation. It is based on the size of the universe, the amount of stars per galaxy, and habitable planets. You have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.


This universe is 100% possible because it was intended by an omniscient unstoppable Force.


You really gotta stop lying and posting presuppositions as fact.


You suppose this logic is an epic fail because you do not consider things outside your current bounds, and view the universe and its creation as an unintelligent incident.


False. I simply admit I don't know the origin of the universe like any honest person should.


Which is absolutely absurd considering that you yourself are a rational thinking human being capable of intelligent thought and action.


Which means nothing related to a universal creator. LOL!



I'm not in attack mode, I am just pointing out the extensive faith required to keep an atheistic viewpoint.


You just keep lying, though. There is no faith involved in being a skeptic. It's based on evidence and what we can test, not presupposition like your silly beliefs which you can't even admit are beliefs!!



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 12:34 PM
link   

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




The problem is, you think intelligent design, and you straight away think a bloke in a beard who loves us and made us in his own image. Yet, there is absolutly no evidence that this is the case.


The problem is your hate for the idea of a Supreme Creator Being simply
because you can't separate the idea from any religious connotations.
Even tho the idea of an intelligent Creator is the most plausible.

So God doesn't have a religion men do!


Why do you assume that skepticism = hate? Most people that don't buy into the claim of God, don't believe because the proposition has never been demonstrated in any meritorious way and because the stories made by holy books are myths closer to fairy tale than reality. If you claim "intelligent creator" is the most plausible then PROVE IT. You are just stating your presuppositions as fact and that's dishonest.



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Lol Dishonest! Good one!
Sounds like you're a liberal.

The odds against what you (science) suggest is responsible for just one human
coming into existence is impossible. Nothing happened that way and you know
it. There's nothing to prove that can be compared to pseudo science.

And Jay has displayed his hate perfectly so stop trying to be my editor.
Science can't even prove it's BS and you want me to prove God exists?

And I'm dishonest? Go away you make me laugh.

Also you seem to favor powerful accusations as used in your reply
to Cooperton


That's a lie


A rather sharp turn to CONCLUSION for a mere bend in the road.
Do you think it made your argument more convincing? It doesn't.
To me it means you realize you don't have a good one.
edit on 6-11-2019 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
While we are debating the merits of the Drake equation, the Fermi paradox deserves some attention also. [...]
So why are these ET types playing hard to get?


Issac Arthur has a very in-depth and detailed series of programs on his YouTube channel about this very subject.
www.youtube.com...

If you can get past his speech impediment, he does a very good job of encapsulating the wide range of possibilities about the Fermi Paradox (as well as other futuristic topics) that will keep you viewing for hours and explore options that are not often considered.

Sounds like an ad, but it's not. It's just a good resource for anybody interested in the topic.



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TzarChasm

It's an equation without a solution.

Solve for X

A x 3B + 4C - 9D x 2E = X

Where A = 3


the drake equation was written to figure out a hypothetical estimation, a possible number of planets which exhibit properties known to sustain life. the question is not about how life happens, it is about how life persists and survives.

Nothing can persist if it does not begin. So you are wrong that the DE is not about life beginning, it is. And we have literally zero data about life persisting other than Earth. Might as well ask a first grader to pick a number between 0 and 100 and use those numbers.


you just went from literally zero to a whole lot in one sentence. and comparing a first grader to a published physicist is a little hurtful. my point was that the drake equation doesnt depend on "how life began" because from that point onward, a large variety of factors can impact the odds and possibilities of what form life will take and how soon they will develop radio technology. its not like some ancient alien race gave us cell phones and the internet.



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: carsforkids


And Jay has displayed his hate perfectly so stop trying to be my editor.
Science can't even prove it's BS and you want me to prove God exists?


How can you say that? All you have to do is read the bible. There we have child abuse, slavery, racism, sexism, homophobic, torture. I could go on and on, and you say I am the hatful one?

But of course, people like you always cherry pick their religon, just to suit their own needs. I do not hate your God, because he is not real! Simple as that!

Unless God is a into child abuse, slavery, racism, sexism, homophobic, torture. Is he?




top topics



 
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join