The Drake Equation Fallacy

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Grenade

Are void dragon farts made of dark energy?

That's alright he might grow up during the course of this thread but was
wondering is it element 15 that's associated with dark matter?

Dark matter is more of a particle than an element.

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Box of Rain

We sure are pretty lucky, this random universe has been very kind to us with its coincidence.

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.

Some of the reasoning some people connect to the so-called "anthropic principle" is based on circular reasoning. Talking about the sophisticated way of arguing something very similar to the arguments used as examples below (although I think the "anthropic principle" itself doesn't actually spell out any of these arguments. But this way of thinking is often connected to it by those who are fond of this term):

...
‘We’re Just Here​—That’s All There Is to It’

Atheists, of course, have their counterarguments. Some shrug off the apparent fine-tuning in nature, saying: ‘Of course the observable universe is capable of supporting human life. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to worry about it. So there’s really nothing to explain. We’re just here, and that’s all there is to it.’ But do you find that a satisfying explanation for our existence?

Another argument is that it will someday be proved that only one possible set of numbers can work in the equations that express the fundamental laws of nature. That is, the dials mentioned above had to be turned to the right settings for the universe to exist at all. Some say, ‘It’s that way because it had to be that way!’ Even if this circular reasoning were true, it would still not provide an ultimate explanation for our existence. In short, is it just a coincidence that the universe exists and that it is life-supporting?
...

Source: Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? (Awake!—2009)

The "dials" mentioned there is referring to the illustration used in the book Science & Christianity​—Four Views, mentioned earlier in the article:

Fine-Tuning​—Evidence of Purposeful Design?

When they examine the laws of nature, many investigators balk at the notion of a cosmos without purpose. They are impressed, for example, by the fundamental forces that regulate the universe. The laws underlying these forces appear to have been fine-tuned in such a way as to produce a universe capable of supporting life. “Changing the existing laws by even a scintilla could have lethal consequences,” says cosmologist Paul Davies. For example, if protons were slightly heavier than neutrons, rather than slightly lighter as they are, all protons would have turned into neutrons. Would that have been so bad? “Without protons and their crucial electric charge,” explains Davies, “atoms could not exist.”

The electromagnetic force attracts electrons to protons, allowing molecules to form. If this force were significantly weaker, electrons would not be held in orbit around the nucleus of an atom, and no molecules could form. If, on the other hand, this force were much stronger, electrons would be stuck to the nucleus of an atom. In that case, chemical reactions and life would simply be impossible.

A slight difference in the electromagnetic force would affect the sun and the solar energy that reaches our earth. Such a difference could easily make photosynthesis in plants difficult or impossible. So the precise strength of the electromagnetic force determines whether life on earth is possible or not.*

The book Science & Christianity​—Four Views has an interesting way of illustrating the delicacy of the balance of forces and elements in the cosmos. The writer asked his readers to visualize an explorer’s visit to an imaginary “control room for the whole universe.” There, the explorer observes rows and rows of dials that can be set to any value, and he learns that each has to be calibrated to a precise setting in order for life to be possible. One dial sets the strength of the force of gravity, one the strength of electromagnetic attraction, another the ratio between the mass of the neutron and the proton, and so on. As the explorer examines these numerous dials, he sees that they could have been set to different values. It also becomes clear to him, after meticulous calculation, that even a small change in any one of the dial settings would modify the architecture of the cosmos in such a way that life in it would cease to exist. Yet, each dial is set to precisely the right value needed to keep the universe running and habitable. What should the visitor deduce about how the dials came to be set the way they are?

Astronomer George Greenstein states: “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency​—or, rather, Agency—​must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?”

What do you think? Which explanation best fits the fine-tuning observable in the cosmos? Purposeful design or mindless process?

‘Something Is Missing’—What? (Awake! 1996)

Theories abound, but honest observers echo Margaret Geller’s astute observation that despite the glib talk, something fundamental seems to be missing in science’s current understanding of the cosmos.

Missing—The Willingness to Face Unpalatable Facts

Most scientists—and this includes most cosmologists—subscribe to the theory of evolution. They find talk unpalatable that gives intelligence and purpose a role in creation, and they shudder at the mere mention of God as Creator. They refuse even to consider such heresy. Psalm 10:4 speaks disparagingly of the supercilious person who “makes no search; all his ideas are: ‘There is no God.’” His creative deity is Chance. But as knowledge increases and chance and also coincidence collapse under the growing load, the scientist begins to turn more and more to such no-no’s as intelligence and design. Consider the following examples:

“A component has evidently been missing from cosmological studies. The origin of the Universe, like the solution of the Rubik cube, requires an intelligence,” wrote astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in his book The Intelligent Universe, page 189.

“The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.”—Disturbing the Universe, by Freeman Dyson, page 250.

“What features of the Universe were essential for the emergence of creatures such as ourselves, and is it through coincidence, or for some deeper reason, that our Universe has these features? . . . Is there some deeper plan that ensures that the Universe is tailor-made for humankind?”—Cosmic Coincidences, by John Gribbin and Martin Rees, pages xiv, 4.

Fred Hoyle also comments on these properties, on page 220 of his book quoted above: “Such properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy accidents. But there are so many of these odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them.”

“It is not only that man is adapted to the universe. The universe is adapted to man. Imagine a universe in which one or another of the fundamental dimensionless constants of physics is altered by a few percent one way or the other? Man could never come into being in such a universe. That is the central point of the anthropic principle. According to this principle, a life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.”—The Anthropic Cosmological Principle,” by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, page vii.

Source: ‘Something Is Missing’—What? (Awake!—1996)

a reply to: TzarChasm

Dark matter is more of a particle than an element.

Woe that just seems so odd to me the way you say it's a particle after hearing
the kind of power it can unleash. But I'm not gonna have you try to explain
something to me I want understand any way. Why waste our time right?

a reply to: Box of Rain
This comment follows up on my previous reply about the anthropic principle. I was out of space for the proper context of the last article I was quoting from, but I really wanted at least something from that article in my other comment. Here's the proper context of those quotations now...

‘Something Is Missing’—What? (Awake!—1996)

Missing—The Willingness to Face Unpalatable Facts

Most scientists—and this includes most cosmologists—subscribe to the theory of evolution. They find talk unpalatable that gives intelligence and purpose a role in creation, and they shudder at the mere mention of God as Creator. They refuse even to consider such heresy. Psalm 10:4 speaks disparagingly of the supercilious person who “makes no search; all his ideas are: ‘There is no God.’” His creative deity is Chance. But as knowledge increases and chance and also coincidence collapse under the growing load, the scientist begins to turn more and more to such no-no’s as intelligence and design. Consider the following examples:

“A component has evidently been missing from cosmological studies. The origin of the Universe, like the solution of the Rubik cube, requires an intelligence,” wrote astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in his book The Intelligent Universe, page 189.

“The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.”—Disturbing the Universe, by Freeman Dyson, page 250.

“What features of the Universe were essential for the emergence of creatures such as ourselves, and is it through coincidence, or for some deeper reason, that our Universe has these features? . . . Is there some deeper plan that ensures that the Universe is tailor-made for humankind?”—Cosmic Coincidences, by John Gribbin and Martin Rees, pages xiv, 4.

Fred Hoyle also comments on these properties, on page 220 of his book quoted above: “Such properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy accidents. But there are so many of these odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them.”

“It is not only that man is adapted to the universe. The universe is adapted to man. Imagine a universe in which one or another of the fundamental dimensionless constants of physics is altered by a few percent one way or the other? Man could never come into being in such a universe. That is the central point of the anthropic principle. According to this principle, a life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.”—The Anthropic Cosmological Principle,” by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, page vii.

God, Design, and the Constants of Physics

What are some of these fundamental constants of physics that are essential for life to exist in the universe? A report in The Orange County Register of January 8, 1995, listed a few of these constants. It stressed how fine-tuned these features must be, stating: “The quantitative values of many basic physical constants defining the universe—for example, the charge of an electron, or the fixed velocity of light, or the ratio of the strengths of fundamental forces in nature—are ravishingly precise, some to 120 decimal places. The development of a life-breeding universe is exceedingly sensitive to these specifications. Any tiny variation—a nanosecond here, an angstrom there—and the universe might well have been dead and barren.”

The author of this report then mentioned the usually unmentionable: “It seems more reasonable to assume that some mysterious bias lurks within the process, perhaps in the action of an intelligent and intentional power who fine-tuned the universe in preparation for our arrival.”

George Greenstein, professor of astronomy and cosmology, gave a longer list of these physical constants in his book The Symbiotic Universe. Among those listed were constants so fine-tuned that if they were off to the very slightest degree, no atoms, no stars, no universe, would have ever been possible. The details of these relationships are listed in the accompanying box. They must exist for physical life to be possible. They are complex and may not be understood by all readers, but they are recognized, along with many others, by astrophysicists trained in these areas.

As this list lengthened, Greenstein became overwhelmed. He said: “So many coincidences! The more I read, the more I became convinced that such ‘coincidences’ could hardly have happened by chance. But as this conviction grew, something else grew as well. Even now it is difficult to express this ‘something’ in words. It was an intense revulsion, and at times it was almost physical in nature. I would positively squirm with discomfort. . . . Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Sickened and horrified by the thought, Greenstein quickly recanted, recovered his scientifically religious orthodoxy, and proclaimed: “God is not an explanation.” No reason—it was just so unpalatable that he could not stomach the thought!

A Natural Human Need

None of this is to disparage the hard work of sincere scientists, including cosmologists. ...

Did you notice how the word "bias" was used? You used it as well. Also note that Astronomer George Greenstein is also quoted at the end of what I quoted from the first article I was quoting from (in my first comment). One of the reasons I wanted to cram this all into 1 comment.

Now after absorbing some of the information and reasoning above and coming back to the topic of circular reasoning, think about what it is that you're really saying or trying to say, or thinking about concerning the first sentence in your comment. All clues as to what it is that I'm alluding to are already in my 2 responses to you.

Incorporating some of my commentary in the thread about "The Universe Creating Itself From Nothing", for those who have read my commentary there...

This time, the pea is primarily in the first sentence of Box of Rain's comment (but hidden in vagueness, fogginess; not spelled out clearly, not immediately apparent as to what someone is really thinking about when they're saying something like that or that is causing them to phrase something in that manner). Or should I say "ball" now instead of "pea"?

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: TzarChasm

Dark matter is more of a particle than an element.

Woe that just seems so odd to me the way you say it's a particle after hearing
the kind of power it can unleash. But I'm not gonna have you try to explain
something to me I want understand any way. Why waste our time right?

What kind of power are you talking about? Dark matter isn't like some sci fi nuclear battery

You believe and worship a God that is psychopathic! How many people have died in the name of your psychopathic God again?

The reason I hate your psychopathic God is because I have empathy. Why would I worship a God that commands the death of innocent people?

a reply to: Jay-morris

Hey don't blame for what psychology says there the ones with the
evidence. lol Maybe you should see one and talk to them about it.
I'm sure they can make you comfortable. lol

a reply to: TzarChasm

What kind of power are you talking about? Dark matter isn't like some sci fi nuclear battery

Okay well see I'm not even sure but I seen something recently maybe it was dark energy?
Super Novas that's it! They help create the exploding force behind a super Nova.

Here it is.

a reply to: Box of Rain
Oh, maybe some of the things the guy in the video below mentions about the anthropic principle, or how he phrases it, may be of assistance regarding further clarification of my previous 2 replies (or at least add some additional clues). Focus on the first 2 minutes (compare with the actual 'turning to design'-behaviour by Barrow and Tipler and the context that quotation was used in regarding the anthropic principle*). *: in particular this context:

Most scientists—and this includes most cosmologists—subscribe to the theory of evolution. They find talk unpalatable that gives intelligence and purpose a role in creation, and they shudder at the mere mention of God as Creator. They refuse even to consider such heresy. Psalm 10:4 speaks disparagingly of the supercilious person who “makes no search; all his ideas are: ‘There is no God.’” His creative deity is Chance. But as knowledge increases and chance and also coincidence collapse under the growing load, the scientist begins to turn more and more to such no-no’s as intelligence and design. Consider the following examples:
...
“It is not only that man is adapted to the universe. The universe is adapted to man. Imagine a universe in which one or another of the fundamental dimensionless constants of physics is altered by a few percent one way or the other? Man could never come into being in such a universe. That is the central point of the anthropic principle. According to this principle, a life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.”—The Anthropic Cosmological Principle,” by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, page vii.

And here's a video that I tend not to use that often because he doesn't mention circular reasoning and doesn't spell out the related reasoning as spelled out in the article "Purposeful Design or Mindless Process?" (my first quotation in my first reply). Nor do I like his phrasing of "for life to even begin to exist" at 0:15. That would be better phrased without the words "begin to", so please ignore those words there. Also the ending isn't that great, but after 3:07, he does say something relevant about your suggestion regarding other types of lifeforms with other requirements regarding the "constants of physics" (quoting Barrow and Tipler). Which relates to the main reason I quoted a bit more detail from the article "Purposeful Design or Mindless Process?" in my first comment about those "constants". Right after the 2 examples of atheist counterarguments (also used by philosophical naturalists and agnostics, as well as religious people that are fond of evolutionary ideas and storylines, especially in Eastern religious philosophy, Mother Nature-worship and Pantheism), the argument regarding the multiverse comes up. I didn't quote that part from the article. But the guy in the video below does say something about that again, as well as how that ties in to string theory, M-theory (and thus quantum physics) and a unifying theory (a.k.a. a "theory of everything").

This video is somewhat alright as long as you start at 3:26, but again, it doesn't mention the circular reasoning involved here, I don't think he has accurately spotted the 'pea' (he's talking about 'sidestepping the issue', which I guess is another way of describing the behaviour related to this form of reasoning, if you want to know what it is that is being sidestepped, read my first comment and the first quotation there from the article about purposeful design or a mindless process, in particular the final question*):

*: which is a clue regarding those who are "assuming the initial point" (that it's just a coincidence), a form of circular reasoning:

The phrase begging the question originated in the 16th century as a mistranslation of the Latin petitio principii, which actually translates to "assuming the initial point".

Source: wikipedia

Can someone transcribe the word at 1:32 in the middle video in the phrase: "that's really, ....ing the question", cause I can't quite make out that word, it's neither "begging" nor "asserting" nor "assuming" as far as I can tell. But it could be that he does mention circular reasoning there in that sense, depending on what word he uses there and what exactly he's referring to.

a reply to: Box of Rain

The video below sadly again doesn't address the topic of circular reasoning and in particular the concept of "assuming the initial point" (a.k.a. "begging the question" , but that description is confusing; that point being related to the expression "by chance and/or necessity", as expressed by concepts such as "luck", "coincidence", and expressions such as "had to", "of necessity", some of those used in the atheistic counterarguments described in my first comment. "Lucky Chance" and "Physical Necessity" are used in the video below). It may still prove to be useful after everything I've said so far:

a reply to: Box of Rain

Also, the 2 atheistic ways of reasoning expressed in my first reply (the quotation from the article), are also expressed in the 2 hour long discussion by Krauss and Dawkins about "nothing" that I linked in the thread about "The Universe Creating Itself From Nothing". Which contains a clue regarding the nature of these 2 ways of reasoning along with why I incorporated my commentary from that thread in these responses.

Now, if you want to spot the figurative 'pea' that I was talking about in that commentary regarding this subject, one needs to have a close look at what's on screen below at 2:42. And not getting distracted by anything else in the video (don't even look at it), focus on point "a" and "b" keeping in mind that the initial atheistic point being assumed is that it was "by necessity" (or anything other than "by God, a Designer, who knows what he's doing", i.e. intelligent enough). Notice the "must have" and "must allow".

Assumptions of the initial point probably shouldn't be referred to as principles. In my first reply, in the quotation from the first article, you can see how the "by necessity" assumption and/or counterargument ("had to") relates to the notion that it's all just a big "coincidence" (luck/by chance). Maybe I should just repeat it to make it a little easier:

‘We’re Just Here​—That’s All There Is to It’

Atheists, of course, have their counterarguments. Some shrug off the apparent fine-tuning in nature, saying: ‘Of course the observable universe is capable of supporting human life. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to worry about it. So there’s really nothing to explain. We’re just here, and that’s all there is to it.’ But do you find that a satisfying explanation for our existence?

Another argument is that it will someday be proved that only one possible set of numbers can work in the equations that express the fundamental laws of nature. That is, the dials mentioned above had to be turned to the right settings for the universe to exist at all. Some say, ‘It’s that way because it had to be that way!’ Even if this circular reasoning were true, it would still not provide an ultimate explanation for our existence. In short, is it just a coincidence that the universe exists and that it is life-supporting?

Often the last part can apply to both counterarguments or connected ways of reasoning (depending on how it's phrased or what someone's underlying thinking is, remember, people have been trained and sometimes conditioned to hide the 'pea'/fallacious thinking, even to themselves so that they themselves can't even see it anymore, misleading/deluding/fooling themselves).

The apostle Paul warned that things would get worse in “the last days,” the time in which we are now living. “Wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse,” he wrote, “misleading and being misled [or, “deluding others and deluding themselves,” Phillips].”​—2 Timothy 3:1, 13.

But I still have my heightened sense of smell. Something smells fishy about the way people talk about the anthropic principle, or the word "nothing" for that matter...

Smart cat plays smell game?

originally posted by: carsforkids

You believe and worship a God that is psychopathic! How many people have died in the name of your psychopathic God again?

The reason I hate your psychopathic God is because I have empathy. Why would I worship a God that commands the death of innocent people?

a reply to: Jay-morris

Hey don't blame for what psychology says there the ones with the
evidence. lol Maybe you should see one and talk to them about it.
I'm sure they can make you comfortable. lol

.

You have clearly showed in this thread that you think you know how everyone thinks, and you have also clumped people together as if you know them.

But, what you really show is your lack of knowledge when it comes to religion, esp your religion. Which mskes me think you were brainwashed into that religion, even though you will never admit that, and will carry on lying satyinging you were a kid who randomly had a pull towards Christianity.

But you have lied all through this thread, so nothing suprise me!

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Grenade

Are void dragon farts made of dark energy?

That's alright he might grow up during the course of this thread but was
wondering is it element 15 that's associated with dark matter?

Dark matter is more of a particle than an element.

Not true at all. Dark Matter is a hypothetical new form of matter which we have no idea of it's atomic structure or even if it exists at all. It could be a particle, or it might actually be dragon farts. It's a FACT that dark matter is simply a variable of a calculation at this moment in time and only exists on a blackboard.

There are many alternative theory which explain our galactic and cosmological observations without the need to invoke dark matter such as Modified Newton Dynamics, Negative Mass Dark Fluid and Entropic Gravity.

Contrary to the bad science proposed by Barcs these are the facts.

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: carsforkids

You believe and worship a God that is psychopathic! How many people have died in the name of your psychopathic God again?

The reason I hate your psychopathic God is because I have empathy. Why would I worship a God that commands the death of innocent people?

a reply to: Jay-morris

Hey don't blame for what psychology says there the ones with the
evidence. lol Maybe you should see one and talk to them about it.
I'm sure they can make you comfortable. lol

.

You have clearly showed in this thread that you think you know how everyone thinks, and you have also clumped people together as if you know them.

But, what you really show is your lack of knowledge when it comes to religion, esp your religion. Which mskes me think you were brainwashed into that religion, even though you will never admit that, and will carry on lying satyinging you were a kid who randomly had a pull towards Christianity.

But you have lied all through this thread, so nothing suprise me!

Considering your blind belief in theoretical science, a subject in which you clearly have limited understanding, i would suggest this post is somewhat hypocritical.

originally posted by: Grenade

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: carsforkids

You believe and worship a God that is psychopathic! How many people have died in the name of your psychopathic God again?

The reason I hate your psychopathic God is because I have empathy. Why would I worship a God that commands the death of innocent people?

a reply to: Jay-morris

Hey don't blame for what psychology says there the ones with the
evidence. lol Maybe you should see one and talk to them about it.
I'm sure they can make you comfortable. lol

.

You have clearly showed in this thread that you think you know how everyone thinks, and you have also clumped people together as if you know them.

But, what you really show is your lack of knowledge when it comes to religion, esp your religion. Which mskes me think you were brainwashed into that religion, even though you will never admit that, and will carry on lying satyinging you were a kid who randomly had a pull towards Christianity.

But you have lied all through this thread, so nothing suprise me!

Considering your blind belief in theoretical science, a subject in which you clearly have limited understanding, i would suggest this post is somewhat hypocritical.

So, because I say there is no evidence for the Christian God being real, then I have blind belief in theoretical science lololololol

Please show me the evidence for the Christian God? Do you have any?

originally posted by: Grenade

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Grenade

Are void dragon farts made of dark energy?

That's alright he might grow up during the course of this thread but was
wondering is it element 15 that's associated with dark matter?

Dark matter is more of a particle than an element.

Not true at all. Dark Matter is a hypothetical new form of matter which we have no idea of it's atomic structure or even if it exists at all. It could be a particle, or it might actually be dragon farts. It's a FACT that dark matter is simply a variable of a calculation at this moment in time and only exists on a blackboard.

There are many alternative theory which explain our galactic and cosmological observations without the need to invoke dark matter such as Modified Newton Dynamics, Negative Mass Dark Fluid and Entropic Gravity.

Contrary to the bad science proposed by Barcs these are the facts.

Dark matter is not an element such as you would find on the periodic table, it is (in theory) a component you find in all space and matter. That was my intended point. But you are correct that it only exists on a blackboard at this time.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Sorry i thought you were going down the Barcs road of bad science. I'm glad someone can actually see sense.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: TzarChasm

Sorry i thought you were going down the Barcs road of bad science. I'm glad someone can actually see sense.

These kinds of discussions get very confusing between all the agendas, misinformation and personal attacks. As far as I can tell, no one has shown any fallacy in the Drake equation without ignoring direct clarification from the man himself. It's easily available on Google if you want to read his interpretation of the exercise he made.

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: Grenade

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: carsforkids

You believe and worship a God that is psychopathic! How many people have died in the name of your psychopathic God again?

The reason I hate your psychopathic God is because I have empathy. Why would I worship a God that commands the death of innocent people?

a reply to: Jay-morris

Hey don't blame for what psychology says there the ones with the
evidence. lol Maybe you should see one and talk to them about it.
I'm sure they can make you comfortable. lol

.

You have clearly showed in this thread that you think you know how everyone thinks, and you have also clumped people together as if you know them.

But, what you really show is your lack of knowledge when it comes to religion, esp your religion. Which mskes me think you were brainwashed into that religion, even though you will never admit that, and will carry on lying satyinging you were a kid who randomly had a pull towards Christianity.

But you have lied all through this thread, so nothing suprise me!

Considering your blind belief in theoretical science, a subject in which you clearly have limited understanding, i would suggest this post is somewhat hypocritical.

So, because I say there is no evidence for the Christian God being real, then I have blind belief in theoretical science lololololol

Please show me the evidence for the Christian God? Do you have any?

That wasn't what i stated, you are confusing the argument as usual.

You don't understand the science so are taking the word of your science prophets as gospel.

Show me the evidence of Dark Matter, it's circumstantial at best.

You are also dismissing the beliefs of someone which i find rude and arrogant.

As if anyone actually knows the true nature of reality or how the universe was created.

Physics does a good job of describing the rules of motion but by no means perfect.

I'd love to see your equation explaining consciousness or the process of creating life from a chemical soup.

Stop being so bloody arrogant when you're clearly not very clever.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm very aware of the Drake Equation.

You could argue the Fermi Paradox.

Quite simply the if the Drake Equation was true then intelligent life would be everywhere and we would have detected it.

But like all science, because the calculations make for good reading we should blindly believe it.

a reply to: Grenade

As i stated in my first post we are limited by our perception and senses. Then you have consciousness which is an unknown quantity.

For all we know we only sense a tiny fraction of the Universe. Like a pigeon who can perceive magnetism there are probably forces outwith our ability to detect which have huge implications for our models of reality.