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: 41
14
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Grenade

It seems to be rather simple if you ask me. The reason gravity can't
fully be explained that is.

Gravity is Gods will. He tells things to stay and much like we
tell a dog to stay, it stays.






posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: carsforkids


If you need a date and what time of morning it was that the universe was created?
Good luck trying to find that any where. And if someone thinks they can make
calculations thru telescopic observations and determine an age of anything. And
sound convincing enough for only the most gullible? One might leave well enough
alone.


And here you are backsliding again. You know I wasn't asking any of that. I asked how old the Earth and Universe are according to your interpretation of Genesis. No straightforward answer seems to be your default. You said all the information is there and yet it would appear that no one can find it. Not even you by your own admission. For all I know you might be a young Earth creationist.
The truth is science (for want of a better word) has much more information and understanding about the universe than the author(s) of Genesis could dream of. I am not so gullible and do not see science as the be all and end all, nor do I think it has all the answers. Theories, speculation and models change as more information becomes available, I don't have an issue with that. Settled science can change too, I am aware of that. Science certainly doesn't have all the answers but gaps in knowledge are just that.




And since when is the information useless? How does that happen? It tells us
there was a beginning. That's information! What science would say different?


So saying 'there was a beginning' is useful? Anyone can say that and it proves absolutely nothing. In fact I'd argue that the universe has no beginning and if there was a 'big bang' it was the result of a precursor of some sort.



How do you explain the vigorous and often use of the Bible in one scientific
field (archaeology) and it's complete dismissal in others? Would you deny
the chronological order of Biblical history confirmed by these artifacts.
Many of which were found with reference to the Bible?


I think the bible is a marvellous book. It is probably the best and oldest written account of the history of a people. There are many truths in there and facts about people and places have proven to be true. There are also wonderful stories and parables that we can interpret on many levels.
That is not to say that I have to accept the supernatural elements contained within it. It contains a mixture of fact, fiction, fantasy, visions and dreams. I have no problem with the bible when seen for what it is.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain




It's true that we are uniquely what we are because all of the very specific circumstances.

However, if some of those circumstances were different, I think there would still be some life somewhere that was just as uniquely suited to THOSE specific circumstances saying "Gee, aren't we lucky that things are exactly as they need to be for us to exist as we do?"

It's the anthropic principle and survivorship bias.


Selective imagination how bout that in comparison to the probability
of scripture. Not exactly worth reading.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: midicon




For all I know you might be a young Earth creationist.


I'm aware of that and was wondering why you didn't just ask me that partner?

The only issue I have with science is it's bias misleading's and it's willingness to
hoax. These are just all traits of the human being I do not trust.




That is not to say that I have to accept the supernatural elements contained within it. It contains a mixture of fact, fiction, fantasy, visions and dreams. I have no problem with the bible when seen for what it is.


And no one here would say you do have to accept anything I hope.

I would say the jury is still out as to what you refer to as fiction and fantasy.

So one last question.

You good?


edit on 3-12-2019 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: carsforkids


I'm aware of that and was wondering why you didn't just ask me that partner?


I asked for your interpretation of Genesis regarding the age of the Earth and Universe as I have no idea of what you might have inferred. Nothing more really.




The only issue I have with science is it's bias misleading's and it's willingness to
hoax. These are just all traits of the human being I do not trust.[/post]


And yet those very same human beings are the authors of the bible. I could just have easily replaced 'science' in your sentence with believers.

ETA,

I'm good and glad you asked! Hope you are too.
edit on 3-12-2019 by midicon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: midicon





I asked for your interpretation of Genesis regarding the age of the Earth and Universe as I have no idea of what you might have inferred. Nothing more really.


Will I don't have one suffice?
And I'm not a young earther I don't believe you can fit the
history of the Bible or as the Bible tells it in 4000 to 6ooo yrs
edit on 3-12-2019 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: carsforkids


Will I don't have one suffice?


I think an honest answer is always sufficient. Kudos for that.

I do have a complaint though! Where is my vitriol?

Regards midicon



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: midicon




I do have a complaint though! Where is my vitriol?

I suppose I could MOCK one up fr ya! lol

Merry Christmas



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: midicon




I do have a complaint though! Where is my vitriol?

I suppose I could MOCK one up fr ya! lol

Merry Christmas


Same to you my friend, in a strange way this has been fun!
edit on 3-12-2019 by midicon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: carsforkids

The only issue I have with science is it's bias misleading's and it's willingness to
hoax. These are just all traits of the human being I do not trust.



I think you need to put the word "can be" in front of your points above. There are 10,000s of scientists and professionals that do their very best to provide the most factual data they can. This is why people in science work extremely hard to prevent confounding variables and to not really trust anything until peer review shows that whatever it is, it is consistently repeatable by others. Then you have math that is the only absolute in the universe and why science relies on it heavily. What you describe above is pseudoscience and that is more about saying something is factual, but is incompatible with the scientific method with basically zero math support.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: carsforkids
In this thread I was merely pointing to the fallacy of chronology.


There is no such thing as "fallacy of chronology." You are making stuff up.



THE MOST PRINTED AND POPULAR BOOK ON THE PLANET ( for my other readers)lol


See, THAT is an actual fallacy. Appeal to popularity. Go back to the drawing board, you don't grasp logic in the slightest.


You're wrong about this as much as everything else.


I'm wrong???? Somebody else brought up Tour in this thread??? You are the goddamn OP and you can't even stay on topic in your own thread.


originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Grenade

It seems to be rather simple if you ask me. The reason gravity can't
fully be explained that is.

Gravity is Gods will. He tells things to stay and much like we
tell a dog to stay, it stays.


LOL, the idiocy continues. I mean it's no real surpise considering you have been using the appeal to ignorance fallacy since the beginning of the thread. Your explanation holds just as much weight as gravity coming from a void dragon's fart.


edit on 12 3 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Barcs

Well our theories about Gravity didn't hold up very well when analysing astronomical observations to verify our Theory.


"Our theories" of gravity? Which other theory are you talking about besides general relativity? What part of Gravity doesn't hold up well when analyzing observations? So far relativity is consistent with all observations.



In fact isn't that why physics now insists 95% of our universe is something which we simply can't see or measure.


Physics does not INSIST that and most physicists admit they don't actually know that. You really need to stop equivocating theory and hypothesis and stop using woowoo definitions of dark matter. It's dark because we don't know what it is and can only measure the effects of it. We can't see or measure it YET.


So basically we have a 5% chance of understanding the true nature of Gravity without invoking completely hypothetical energy and matter.


Complete nonsense, where did you learn math? Hypothetically, 95% is dark matter, that doesn't mean we only understand 5% about gravity. Again, gravity is bending/warping of space-time caused by matter and energy. Why would dark matter be any different in that effect?


We simply have NO IDEA how Gravity works at a quantum level. Nothing that matches our scientific measurements at least.


Yeah we don't know a LOT about quantum mechanics, but that's not an argument against general relativity, nor does it mean that what we know about gravity is wrong.


I'm simply stating that Science actually has a poor and limited understanding of the universe confined to calculations and logic.


Poor and limited understanding??? First it's not poor, it's just incomplete. Not knowing everything isn't a limitation, it just means more work needs to be done.


Unless i can directly detect and accurately predict the behaviour with observational methods i simply don't accept it as part of reality, just a prediction that can only be verified at this moment by running simulations.


General relativity has accurately predicted many things. Not sure what you're getting at here.


Also, do you think Science will cause the end of the human race?


A method cannot cause the extinction of humans. It's up to the humans to use the knowledge gained from science intelligently and wisely. If anything the ignorance on climate change will cause our extinction (THANKS RELIGION!). Sorry but attempting to blame the scientific method for how humans use it is like blaming a shovel for the guy that uses it to beat people over the head and kill them. The whole purpose of science is to ignore presuppositions and gain knowledge. Of course it's calculated and based on reality. That's not a problem. The problem is human greed and thirst for money and power, something that is NOT limited to just science. Greedy people are all over the place.


At least our Silicon army will destroy half the Galaxy in a homage to our human ancestry after we are all turned into the Borg.


You really think that what we do on planet earth, tiny spec of dust in comparison to the galaxy is going to destroy half the galaxy?

edit on 12 3 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade
We sure are pretty lucky, this random universe has been very kind to us with its coincidence.


Is that why 99.99999% of the universe is hostile to life?


Also has anyone ever tried to work out the chances of a moon and sun performing a near perfect eclipse? Must be pretty small, another strange astronomical coincidence i'd say.


In a universe with hundreds of trillions of stars and hundreds of billions of galaxies, it's not coincidence in the slightest that one planet (and likely millions more) has a similar perspective of moon and sun size in the sky. It wasn't always like that. Billions of years ago, the moon was closer to earth, so it was bigger in the sky and eclipses were longer and partial eclipses were more common
edit on 12 3 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




I think you need to put the word "can be" in front of your points above.

I won't argue that.




There are 10,000s of scientists and professionals that do their very best to provide the most factual data they can.

No disagreement there.




This is why people in science work extremely hard to prevent confounding variables and to not really trust anything until peer review shows that whatever it is, it is consistently repeatable by others.


Yep and I would take nothing away from them.




What you describe above is pseudoscience and that is more about saying something is factual, but is incompatible with the scientific method with basically zero math support.


No it's not just pseudo science and you know better. Not all scientists
are white hats and rose colored glasses are they?



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Dark matter was proposed due to our accepted theory for Gravity not matching astronomical observation.

Gravitational effects of galaxies could not be explained without increasing the mass by massive amounts otherwise galaxies could not form in their current state. We didnt detect more mass or new subatomic particles but simply because our equations didn't match observation so we had to invoke dark matter or energy. A form of matter we have never directly observed or measured.

You could argue quantum entanglement defies general relativity due to non locality. Or as Einstein described it spooky action at a distance.

I'd suggest in 1000 years our current understanding of science would seem primitive and fanciful.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Grenade

Dark matter was proposed because scientists detected gravity coming from things we couldn't observe. Being unable to observe the cause of it isn't the same as conflicting with observation, it means we don't know. Not matching observation would be an object emitting a gravitational "pull" that is inconsistent with the mass. If one day they discovered that this gravity did not come from a mass, THEN you could say there was conflicting observations, but right now it's anybody's guess.

There are many things that can't be explained. Not being able to explain something doesn't call the theory of relativity into question, but adds to our current understanding if and when they figure out what it is. And by the way, it's more like 85% of MATTER in the universe that is hypothesized to be DM, not 95% of the entire universe.
edit on 12 3 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

It's 95% if you include dark energy. Another undetectable variable in the equations. They didn't detect gravity at all, you can't detect gravity. They simply had to invoke dark matter and energy to keep their theory from falling apart in the face of observation.


edit on 3/12/19 by Grenade because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Barcs

It's 95% if you include dark energy. Another undetectable variable in the equations. They didn't detect gravity at all, you can't detect gravity. They simply had to invoke dark matter and energy to keep their theory from falling apart in the face of observation.



Dark energy is something completely different. It's the acceleration of the universe expanding. Yeah, that is measurable and detectable, we just don't know what causes it. It doesn't necessarily make up the universe. Nobody knows, but it could be the pull of other universes on our universe if multiverse hypothesis is correct.
edit on 12 3 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Again it's a hypothesis and cannot be measured or detected directly. Hence the "dark".



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Grenade

Dark matter was proposed because scientists detected gravity coming from things we couldn't observe. Being unable to observe the cause of it isn't the same as conflicting with observation, it means we don't know. Not matching observation would be an object emitting a gravitational "pull" that is inconsistent with the mass. If one day they discovered that this gravity did not come from a mass, THEN you could say there was conflicting observations, but right now it's anybody's guess.

There are many things that can't be explained. Not being able to explain something doesn't call the theory of relativity into question, but adds to our current understanding if and when they figure out what it is. And by the way, it's more like 85% of MATTER in the universe that is hypothesized to be DM, not 95% of the entire universe.


That's exactly what we experienced. The gravitational pull did not match the mass when looking at Galaxy formation and structure so we had to speculate that there was more unseen mass. Dark matter until detected is simply a mathematical hypothesis to enforce our notion that general relativity holds true.

Seems to me science is using a lot of unknown variables. I guess I should just put faith in the science without direct observation or measurement? Seems a bit like what the religious nuts propose as well.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join