The Drake Equation Fallacy

a reply to: Jay-morris

Because you have a bad attitude and think it's ok to ridicule someone because of their faith in religion.

To me you seem very childish. Wouldn't be surprised if you're a hormonal teenager.

I don't agree with carsforkids but at least he understands how to politely disagree and has a modicum of decorum.

Also, it's you that has a complex about my intelligence. This is how i communicate: rationally, composed, logical and considered. I can understand why it would irk you if your own brand of lexicon is more simplistic.

a reply to: Jay-morris

If you're going to use arrogant and ignorant in the same sentence spelling them both correctly would help your case. Seems your ignorant to arrogance.

Isn't Arragont a character from LOTR?

Actually i'm not bringing myself down to that level.

I apologise if i offended you, it wasn't my intention. I think we have more to gain from compromise and understanding rather than picking apart each others character.

Can we all please take a deep breath and try get back on topic using rational and reasonable vernacular which is suitable for a constructive discussion?

Otherwise i'm out.

a reply to: Grenade

Because you have a bad attitude and think it's ok to ridicule someone because of their faith in religion.

Sorry, but that is a load of rubbish! The people I am debating are religous, and some of them have used the same attitude in this debate, but you ignore that fact and turn on me becsuse I do not believe in God! So, you clearly have an agenda here!

To me you seem very childish. Wouldn't be surprised if you're a hormonal teenager.

Why? Because I disagree with you and these other people, thst means I am a kids? lol All I have done is ask for evidence that the Christian God is real. Have you not seen the abusive post towards me? Or are you ignoring them and making out I am this little Child abusing everyone? Absolutly ridiculous!

I don't agree with carsforkids but at least he understands how to politely disagree and has a modicum of decorum.

You are either lying, or you have not read his replies to people! Which one is it?

Also, it's you that has a complex about my intelligence. This is how i communicate: rationally, composed, logical and considered. I can understand why it would irk you if your own brand of lexicon is more simplistic.

When you ridicule someone's intelligence, without even knowing them, says it all really. You think you are the only person on here with an intelligence complex?

If you're going to use arrogant and ignorant in the same sentence spelling them both correctly would help your case. Seems your ignorant to arrogance.

Isn't Arragont a character from LOTR?

There you go again! You just cannot help it can't you! You have to put people down to lift your own insecurity about your intelligence!

Here, let me explain! I type my messages on my mobile. I have a habit of auto filling predictive text, which means spelling can be wrong. But so bloody what!? You know what a meant, but you just cannot help getting in another intelligence dig!

Actually i'm not bringing myself down to that level.

With your last couple of posts, you have proved you have proved you are not bringing yourself down to that level, as you are already there!

I apologise if i offended you, it wasn't my intention. I think we have more to gain from compromise and understanding rather than picking apart each others character.

Well, a good start would be not butting in on my replies to other posters on here that has nothing to do with you.

Can we all please take a deep breath and try get back on topic using rational and reasonable vernacular which is suitable for a constructive discussion?

Otherwise i'm out.

Whatever! But if you are going to stay on here, you should use less of the supierer intelligence thing you like to through around. No one is impressed.

I tried, clearly compromise is out of the question.

I will avoid any further interaction with you.

I'd love to know how i'm exhibiting an intelligence complex. I am providing my thoughts and reasoning at the best level i know how. Are you suggesting i simplify my posts?

Damn it, i was just about to flex my Latin.

Apologies everyone for researching and providing resources to explain my reasoning. I solemnly swear to go thoroughly bash the IQ out of myself so as to appease those who feel threatened by concepts they fail to understand due to my diversified dialect.

*throws thesaurus on the fire next to my library of study material

originally posted by: Grenade
I tried, clearly compromise is out of the question.

I will avoid any further interaction with you.

I'd love to know how i'm exhibiting an intelligence complex. I am providing my thoughts and reasoning at the best level i know how. Are you suggesting i simplify my posts?

Damn it, i was just about to flex my Latin.

Apologies everyone for researching and providing resources to explain my reasoning. I solemnly swear to go thoroughly bash the IQ out of myself so as to appease those who feel threatened by concepts they fail to understand due to my diversified dialect.

*throws thesaurus on the fire next to my library of study material

When you start putting down other people's intelligence, then that's a no no!

Sorry, but you were attacking me because of another post/debate I was having about the Christian God! Did not see you providing research and providing resources for that!

So, if you are going to ignore my debates with other posters, than be my guest. If you are going to ignoring me full stop, that's better!

a reply to: Jay-morris

You make absolutely no sense at all. You're hopeless with this weird
combination of attack and blame the other guy first illogically bad
grammar, repetitious posting trolling and obsessed.

And wrong to boot. I'm not sure you could be more perfect for
the job.

a reply to: Grenade

Still think I'm wrong?

I'd rather not comment, i can't even quantify how my inferior primitive intellect could possibly handle the denigration at the hands of this perspicacious behemoth of intelligence.

a reply to: carsforkids

I'll leave this thread with the thoughts of Sir Isaac Newton. I'm paraphrasing as i'm in bed however i can post the whole paragraph word by word tomorrow if you have doubts.

In the General Scholium, an appendage to Principia:

Though these bodies may continue in their orbits merely by the laws of Gravity, they could have by no means first derived the regular position of those orbits themselves from those laws. Thus, this most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and all powerful being.

This is by no means verbatim however it was something that stuck with me and i memorised so should be pretty close.

Actually a lot of Newtons work contains references to God, most of that is left out in modern teaching. Theology is only invoked in science when it enforces Atheism.

Materialism:
From nothing arose all energy and matter.
These particles diversified and increased in complexity over time.
Eventually these particles turned into life.
That life became aware.
Life then conceived of God.

Personally i think it makes more sense if you put God first and the complexity is a grand design, when you reach life it perceives design within nature and comes to a natural conclusion of creation.

I guess that makes me a crazy religious nutter.

Scientific evidence points toward an infinite curvature of space time at the beginning of the universe. A place of no space and no time. Which can only be explained by creation. There was a moment when everything was created from nothing and a cause for it's beginning. Something that has plagued science since the discovery of red-shift. Until then the idea of an infinite universe was possible where you have no need for God.

originally posted by: Grenade
I'd rather not comment, i can't even quantify how my inferior primitive intellect could possibly handle the denigration at the hands of this perspicacious behemoth of intelligence.

Cheese and rice I haven't laughed that hard in a while.

Only on ATS!

I'll leave this thread with the thoughts of Sir Isaac Newton. I'm paraphrasing as i'm in bed however i can post the whole paragraph word by word tomorrow if you have doubts.

In the General Scholium, an appendage to Principia:

Though these bodies may continue in their orbits merely by the laws of Gravity, they could have by no means first derived the regular position of those orbits themselves from those laws. Thus, this most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and all powerful being.

This is by no means verbatim however it was something that stuck with me and i memorised so should be pretty close.

Actually a lot of Newtons work contains references to God, most of that is left out in modern teaching. Theology is only invoked in science when it enforces Atheism
Materialism:
From nothing arose all energy and matter.
These particles diversified and increased in complexity over time.
Eventually these particles turned into life.
That life became aware.
Life then conceived of God.

Personally i think it makes more sense if you put God first and the complexity is a grand design, when you reach life it perceives design within nature and comes to a natural conclusion of creation.

I guess that makes me a crazy religious nutter.
Scientific evidence points toward an infinite curvature of space time at the beginning of the universe. A place of no space and no time. Which can only be explained by creation. There was a moment when everything was created from nothing and a cause for it's beginning. Something that has plagued science since the discovery of red-shift. Until then the idea of an infinite universe was possible where you have no need for God.

:

This is going in my archives.

originally posted by: Grenade

originally posted by: turbonium1
At least I know objects cannot block out the blue sky unless it's LOWER than the blue sky, unlike other people, who live in fantasy-world, where everything can become real, just by wishing hard enough for it!

The blue sky is made of various gases which are scattering light from the sun. It would only block the moon if it was a physical, non-transparent, solid barrier.

Sorry to pee in your cornflakes but you're not thinking this through.

I mean anything is possible but you can see through gas and scattered light so the scientific concept of seeing the moon in daylight is perfectly reasonable.

If the moon is reflecting more light than the atmosphere then it would be brighter in the sky. Same goes with Venus which you can regularly see near the horizon due to it's apparent magnitude.

The moon is not blocking out the Sky, it is shining through our atmosphere at a higher luminosity than the light scattering through atmospheric refraction. If you blow smoke in front of a flashlight does it stop all light passing through?

I can see sometimes why science get's so frustrated with the concept of creation. Literal interpretation of biblical scripture really does fly in the face of observation.

I'm going to change my theology, i wish to be called a scientific creationist. Religious Zealots give those of us with true belief in creation a bad name.

If you shine light on an object, on Earth, which reflects the light back to you, do you see that same object reflected back to you, or do you only see light being reflected back, FROM the object?

The most reflective surfaces, or objects, on Earth, are all flat - like a mirror, or a calm lake, or a window, or a metal sheet, etc. Those are the only objects, or surfaces, which even reflect light to the point of being visible from a distance.

But reflections do NOT reflect the actual objects back to you, they only reflect light back. Every single object/surface proves that, which is the reason you cannot find one example of it anywhere online, or elsewhere. If you know of any, let me know, because I'd love to hear about it.

So why would the moon - an object - appear AS THE ACTUAL OBJECT, when it reflects light? We know that's impossible, since objects on Earth do NOT reflect the object itself back, it only reflect light from the object.

Sorry to pee in your cornflakes, but I DO understand the subject, so please drop the act, I've seen it all before, ad nauseum.

Anyway, we now arrive at the 'unique example' argument, once again. The argument which cannot show any valid example of the same phenomenon, except when it happens in 'space'.

That's where your side will point to a planet like Venus, to support a claim about the moon, even though Venus has never been proven to be 25 million miles away, to begin with. Or showing 'images' taken by astronauts in 'space', or from the 'moon', that 'prove' Earth is being reflected back to them. Again, there is no proof astronauts were in 'space', or on the 'moon', so it cannot support another false claim, obviously.

The fact remains - reflecting light off an object does NOT reflect the actual object back again. Only light reflects back from an object, or surface. If you disagree, show me ACTUAL examples of it.


So we have no evidence that objects can ever reflect themselves back to us, as objects, other than your 'moon' object, that is.

I haven't addressed the issue of how an object could reflect itself through the atmosphere, block it from view, and so forth, as yet...the issue of how an object COULD reflect as an actual object, should be addressed before anything else....

a reply to: turbonium1

Sorry but that's complete and utter nonsense and drivel.

Everything we see is reflected light. Surface features are discernable, unless they are washed out by the intensity of the light being too much for our optics without causing damage or a lack of contrast.

Turn on your light now and look around your room. Does reflected light suddenly make everything disappear?

Walk down the road on a sunny day. Can you still see the road and stones, puddles, cars and their features?

If I look at you in sunshine are you just a ball of light?

I really don't get your argument at all. The moon to me appears as any other object reflecting light. Everything is an illusion of perception, i am seeing light being scattered and hitting my retina then creating a picture based on this information to deduce, shape, colour, size etc.

You will need to try and explain your argument better, because right now i see no distinction between the moon reflecting light and any other object doing the same thing. Obviously everything absorbs and reflects light in a variety of ways but my perception of the moon is how i expect it. How should the moon look in your version of physics?

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

J. Robert Oppenheimer remarked after witnessing the Trinity atomic bomb test "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds".

This is a quote from a religious text Bhagavad Gita.

In the blink of an eye his invention killed around 200,000 Japanese civilians. You see science will give us the power that was once reserved for the mythological gods.

Who is more dangerous, someone who believes in god and worships them or someone who craves for their power and will kill to attain it?

I'd say more than a few of our leading scientists could be described as psychopathic and far more of a danger than religious scripture.

Science allows for the exponential growth of technology and with that comes great responsibility, something i don't think we are ready for. Especially when you start attempting to access other dimensions, parallel universes, anti-matter and other exotic forms of research. They could and probably will end us all.

It seems inevitable, imo.

The technology also allows us to find out the truth, in many ways....but only if one seeks the truth, because it will not be splashed on the 6 o'clock news for you, that's for sure.

It is quite remarkable, in what we have found, so far. It will only get better, and more widespread, in future.

At the same time, everything else is getting worse, ironically.

a reply to: turbonium1

When you understand the schematics of Gods design it allows you to exploit this power.

All we are achieving is discovery of knowledge that already existed within the initial inception.

A lot of scientists struggle with creation as they want to be the God in the universal equation.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: turbonium1

Sorry but that's complete and utter nonsense and drivel.

Everything we see is reflected light. Surface features are discernable, unless they are washed out by the intensity of the light being too much for our optics without causing damage or a lack of contrast.

Turn on your light now and look around your room. Does reflected light suddenly make everything disappear?

Walk down the road on a sunny day. Can you still see the road and stones, puddles, cars and their features?

If I look at you in sunshine are you just a ball of light?

I'm quite aware of how reflections work, and don't work, but thanks anyway.

Your claim is that sunlight is directed toward the moon, which has no light itself, but when sunlight hits it, the moon reflects it - all of it - down to Earth. Which means, an object is reflecting all of this light in one direction, for miles and miles, and when it reaches about 245,000 miles out, it suddenly stops reflecting any further out, which is about 5000 miles above Earth, under blue skies, and that's where we see it, in daylight...is that about it?

How does light hit one side of a ball, and magically, reflect the light out onto the opposite side of it, where no light hit it?
And the side hit by light is in darkness, as well. Please prove this is somehow possible in the real world, if you can.


Because when the moon is seen in daylight, the Sun is also seen above, at the same time. The entire Sun is seen above, and is beside the moon. Assuming the Sun is far behind the moon, from Earth's position, it is impossible for sunlight to hit the side of the moon facing Earth, which we can easily demonstrate with any objects here on Earth, if you don't understand this yet.

From our position, the Sun is seen beside the moon, while it is much further in distance, than the moon is, from Earth. So where would sunlight first contact the moon? If anywhere, it would obviously have to hit the side of the moon which faces towards the sun, right?

Same as how the sunlight hits the side of Earth which faces the Sun, yes? Sunlight does not hit the other side of the Earth-ball, so how could sunlight hit the other side of the moon-ball? It could not, and does not, because it is simply impossible.
Try and demonstrate this fantasy, and see what happens...


When they've 'demonstrated' how this phenomenon happens, they create a moon which is seen at night, and a Sun nobody can see at that time, at night.

But they have never demonstrated how this could possibly work when it is daylight, where both the Sun and moon are seen above Earth. Because they could not position the Sun and moon both above Earth, at the same time, and show how sunlight could hit the moon on the side facing Earth, at that same time....

If we see the moon, and sunlight cannot be it's source of light, which they know is impossible, and cannot demonstrate it for that reason, we know the light of the moon is NOT from the sun, which means the moon is a light source, itself. There is no other source of light which could possibly explain it.

That means the Sun is not the moon's source of light, obviously.

Unless you can demonstrate how both the Sun and moon can appear in daylight, where the Sun can hit the moon on the side not facing Earth, or even the side facing Earth, while beside it, in daylight, and reflect the light back down to Earth, you should realize it is absolutely impossible, and totally absurd.

a reply to: turbonium1

Because when the moon is seen in daylight, the Sun is also seen above, at the same time.

Except when there is an eclipse.

I do see what you are saying. But if the sun is rising in the east
and the moon is directly over head and spends half the day dying
in the west. The sun is the light source fr any such appearance.
As for the occasions that put the sun behind the moon we see
exactly what you say happen. The dark side of the moon facing
earth.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: turbonium1

When you understand the schematics of Gods design it allows you to exploit this power.

All we are achieving is discovery of knowledge that already existed within the initial inception.

A lot of scientists struggle with creation as they want to be the God in the universal equation.

What I find most interesting here, is that God could have easily created the Earth in such a way that everyone would know is God's creation, and it would have left no doubt, ever after, that God exists.

He could have put South America beside the bottom of the firmament, for example. Nobody could have created the firmament, except our Creator, and we'd all know, forever afterwards, that God truly does exist.

All sorts of things could have shown God's magnificent creation, but He didn't.

He left the Earth's creation unknown, uncertain, on purpose, obviously. He wanted each of us to SEEK the truth of God, not just hand it to us, on a silver platter.

He said wisdom leads to the truth, and He is quite correct about that. Wisdom is in all of us, it is the path which leads us to the truth. Ignorance is the other path, which leads to nothing but lies, and evil. Fear breeds insecurity, and leads to evil, as well. Love breeds happiness, and security, and leads to the truth, if we choose love over fear and hate.


A fascinating concept, indeed.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: turbonium1

Because when the moon is seen in daylight, the Sun is also seen above, at the same time.

Except when there is an eclipse.

But I do see what you are saying. But if the sun is rising in the east
and the moon is directly over head and spends half the day dying
in the west. The sun is the light source fr any such appearance.
As for the occasions that put the sun behind the moon we see
exactly what you say happen. The dark side of the moon facing
earth.

Genesis 1:16:

"And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars."

Isaiah 30:26:

"Moreover, the light of the moon will be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day when the Lord binds up the brokenness of his people, and heals the wounds inflicted by his blow."

a reply to: turbonium1

"And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars."

Isaiah 30:26:

You win I can't believe my mind didn't consider that verse and I choose
what I believe to be Gods word always.

Why do I believe it's Gods word? Because if he can do universe he can do Bible
thru the human inspired. Or any other way he chooses. So I can depend on
it being perfect according to his will. As I have seen no better example
of this than The Bible. It's just that simple.