The Drake Equation Fallacy

a reply to: carsforkids

You might like reading about my version of the Drake equation:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't really agree with much of what you are saying. However, I will give you a bonus gift for supporting your argument:



I don't think your way of thinking about supreme being is correct based how you used the concept in your post. I think this way of thinking about the supreme being is much more superior than your way of thinking about it:

a reply to: Noinden

There is far more scientific evidence for Jesus Christ than there is
life on other planets capable of spanning light years only to crash
into our planet.

originally posted by: carsforkids
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.

What are you talking about? Galaxies exist. Stars exist. Planets revolve around them. Many are in what we term the "habitable zone". There are, litterally, many trillions.

Are those not "physical realities"?

a reply to: dfnj2015

Thank you your information will be looked with upon an open mind.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Noinden

There is far more scientific evidence for Jesus Christ than there is
life on other planets capable of spanning light years only to crash
into our planet.

There is SOME evidence (evidence is not proof) that there was one someone of that name 2000+ ybp. Whether that "evidence" is credible depends on the perspective of the individual. Just because that person may have existed, doesn't mean he was, necessarily, the son of god.

In any case, what does Jesus have to do with a "creator", that, purportedly, put life on planet earth a billion years ago?

a reply to: Mach2

Are those not "physical realities"?

Did you expect an argument against this? I guess you don't know
what I'm talk'n about at all.

The Drake equation ring any bells?

a reply to: carsforkids

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field image covers a spot covering less than one-tenth of one-millionth of the sky. There are about 10,000 galaxies in the image. If there is only one civilisation per galaxy, in that extremely small area of sky there could be 10,000 civilisations that are there. Likely they would never see each other, or communicate with each other, but its still a huge number.

To quote the Hitch HIkers Guide "Space is big"

Or...put it this way, how many single things do you see? Nature is not singular. The fact that we are here suggests that life exists elsewhere.

Or - and here is a logic argument/thought experiment - your god is not human - they are a god. That means they are alien to us mere mortals, meaning that there is already another intelligent life form out there according to your own logic and your premise fails from the start.

a reply to: Mach2

In any case, what does Jesus have to do with a "creator", that, purportedly, put life on planet earth a billion years ago?

Everything!

Scholarly historicity is evidence for Jesus Christ existing, being crucified,
and even walking out of the tomb. Making my belief in him and all that he
said supporting the genesis account more scientific and believable than an
equation that ignores the previous information and fails to disprove it.
Quite simple despite your resistance to see it clearly.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Mach2

Are those not "physical realities"?

Did you expect an argument against this? I guess you don't know
what I'm talk'n about at all.

The Drake equation ring any bells?

I guess I don't. Enlighten me.

The Drake equation doesn't presume anything. It was a mathmatical probability formula. It undoubtedly has variables that we have no way of confirming, but that was not the point at all.

Have you read Drake's own remarks on the matter? I ask, because many ppl make assumptions about Drake, that aren't really reflective of his thought process.

a reply to: neformore

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field image covers a spot covering less than one-tenth of one-millionth of the sky. There are about 10,000 galaxies in the image. If there is only one civilisation per galaxy, in that extremely small area of sky there could be 10,000 civilisations that are there. Likely they would never see each other, or communicate with each other, but its still a huge number.

Are you presenting pure speculation as fact? Seriously? Speculation that knows
nothing of the timeline or even considers the possibility that this might be the
first planet in the universe where sentient life forms did arise?

Despite what you choose to believe about it's origins? And then you still
want to turn and say what I believe is unscientific and ridiculous?

lol You can't have it both ways because I won't let you. Sorry I won't!

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Mach2

In any case, what does Jesus have to do with a "creator", that, purportedly, put life on planet earth a billion years ago?

Everything!

Scholarly historicity is evidence for Jesus Christ existing, being crucified,
and even walking out of the tomb. Making my belief in him and all that he
said supporting the genesis account more scientific and believable than an
equation that ignores the previous information and fails to disprove it.
Quite simple despite your resistance to see it clearly.

What scholarly historical evidence? Offhand remarks by Tacitus, and Josephus, 60 years after the fact?

If you discount religious sources, that have a dog in the fight, there isn't that much evidence, and there is zero evidence, besides anecdotal, that he arose from the dead.

I realize your obvious indoctrination will not allow you to beleive otherwise, so there is no point in further arguement of this line.

Besides there are many other threads addressing both sides of the arguement.

originally posted by: neformore
Or...put it this way, how many single things do you see?

You mean like yourself? How many other "yous" do you think are out there in the universe?

It all depends on resolution. Yeah, there are lots of stars. But not all stars have planets. Yeah, there are planets, but not all of them have water. Yeah, some of them have water, but how many do we know for sure have life? Just the one.

Now, maybe -- maybe -- there are other planets with water and life on them out there, but at this point they're hypothetical. And hypothetical by definition means they don't really exist. How do we make them non-hypothetical? Well, the only way to do it is find life on at least one of them. Which we haven't done yet, even as the number of moons and planets we've discovered continues to grow.

Here is some really good arguments why we don't see evidence the Universe is teeming with life:

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: neformore

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field image covers a spot covering less than one-tenth of one-millionth of the sky. There are about 10,000 galaxies in the image. If there is only one civilisation per galaxy, in that extremely small area of sky there could be 10,000 civilisations that are there. Likely they would never see each other, or communicate with each other, but its still a huge number.

Are you presenting pure speculation as fact? Seriously? Speculation that knows
nothing of the timeline or even considers the possibility that this might be the
first planet in the universe where sentient life forms did arise?

Despite what you choose to believe about it's origins? And then you still
want to turn and say what I believe is unscientific and ridiculous?

lol You can't have it both ways because I won't let you. Sorry I won't!

It is possible that we are the first sentient life in the universe. It is also possible that life is common, but sentience was a one off development.

I don't think most ppl discount those possibilities entirely. The just see them as very unlikely, given the immensity of the size, and time frame involved.

a reply to: Mach2

that he arose from the dead.

Your words not mine. Any scholar worth his salt doesn't deny that Jesus walked
out of the tomb. But avoid the wording you are using.

Now you're going off topic mentioning my indoctrination. You're not
going to start calling me names next are you?










now

originally posted by: carsforkids

Are you presenting pure speculation as fact? Seriously?

That question from the person claiming a supreme being exists?



We may be the first and only civilisation, but then again we may not. Our very (real) presence suggests that civilisations can rise, which makes it statistically possible that there are others out there.

The fact that someone called Jesus may have existed however, does not prove that god exists.

a reply to: Mach2

It is possible that we are the first sentient life in the universe. It is also possible that life is common, but sentience was a one off development.

I don't think most ppl discount those possibilities entirely. The just see them as very unlikely, given the immensity of the size, and time frame involved.

Well I'm glad to see you aren't immovable in what I'm saying. The rest is just agreeing to disagree.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Mach2

that he arose from the dead.

Your words not mine. Any scholar worth his salt doesn't deny that Jesus walked
out of the tomb. But avoid the wording you are using.

Now you're going off topic mentioning my indoctrination. You're not
going to start calling me names next are you?










now

Funny I don't recall any scholar that has evidence Jesus actually walked out of his tomb...(aside from fundamentalist Christian preachers)... theres evidence he existed through Paul... but aside from that I'd love to see what you have that I don't

originally posted by: Blue Shift
You mean like yourself? How many other "yous" do you think are out there in the universe?

"Me" as in humanoid life-form - there's at least 7.7 billion as far as I am aware.
"Me" as in personally - if you apply quantum effects, potentially at least another one - however the subject is intelligent life, not individuals.

Now, maybe -- maybe -- there are other planets with water and life on them out there, but at this point they're hypothetical. And hypothetical by definition means they don't really exist. How do we make them non-hypothetical? Well, the only way to do it is find life on at least one of them. Which we haven't done yet, even as the number of moons and planets we've discovered continues to grow.

We haven't because we have barely scratched the surface in terms of what we can see (for example we can only see planets passing stars at the correct angles for us to see them traverse their parent star, or that are so massive they have gravitational effects whereas smaller earth size rocky planets are harder to detect that giant planets).

I think you are seriously underestimating the scale of the universe here, and overestimating the extent of our search. We've only lightly touched the surface, let alone begin to scratch it.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Mach2

that he arose from the dead.

Your words not mine. Any scholar worth his salt doesn't deny that Jesus walked
out of the tomb. But avoid the use wording you are using.

Now you're going off topic mentioning my indoctrination. You're not
going to start calling me names next are you?










now

Not at all. I don't think less of those who are more religious tha I may be. In fact, I'm not an atheist.

I do, however, think that anyone who has all the answers, and believes that their particular brand of beleif is the only, and unerring way, are silly.

Obviously you follow Christian traditions, but what of other religions? Are Buddhists somehow inferior, or to be refused entry int "heaven"?

How about Hindus? Beleivers in Islam?

You see, I don't have a problem with religion, only with those who think their way in the ONLY way.

As to being off topic? That horse left the barn as soon as someone interjected religion into a scientific discussion.

There is nothing "scientific" about religion. That's why it is called faith.