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: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Grenade




Not sure i buy the whole supreme being argument tho, just as flawed if you are basing it on evidence.


I used the model because it provides actual information regarding
chronological order. All we ever hear about is advanced civilizations.
If we speculate there are advanced civilizations ahead of us we could
be the last in a long succession of civilizations just popping into existence
out of nowhere. And for no gawd damn reason at all except to make star
wars movies and vomit bullshlt out the mouth pretending we know the un;
knowable. Or there may younger civilizations. Or who knows but the point
is we don't know and we may very well be the first. If we are the first and
this is the beginning? Then DE is just bolstering some ignorant fantasy. And
any unbiased rationale or common sense reasoning would concur. So the
equation doesn't work do to our lack of knowledge and lack of evidence.
And I bet I've seen UFOs more than anyone else on ATS. What ever they
were I saw them here.


I also thought it would be fun to watch mature educated, intelligent,
professionals, whatever get their little panties in a bind over what
shouldn't even phase them one bit. It's pretty funny watch'n how far
some of the butts get out of joint.

So there's that!




posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: carsforkids
...
You do realise that if there is one habitable planet hosting intelligent life, in every galaxy (not star... galaxy) that we can see then the universe is teeming with life?

From the year 2000: “In the last few decades, a growing number of astronomers have promulgated the view that alien civilizations are likely to be scattered among the stars,” states The New York Times. “This extraterrestrial credo has fueled not only countless books, movies and television shows . . . but a long scientific hunt that uses huge dish antennas to scan the sky for faint radio signals from intelligent aliens.” That search will most likely fail, say two prominent scientists, Dr. Peter D. Ward and Dr. Donald C. Brownlee, authors of the book Rare Earth. New findings in astronomy, paleontology, and geology, they say, show “that Earth’s composition and stability are extraordinarily rare” and that conditions elsewhere are unsuitable for complex life-forms. “We have finally said out loud what so many have thought for so long—that complex life, at least, is rare,” said Dr. Ward. Adds Dr. Brownlee: “People say the Sun is a typical star. That’s not true. Almost all environments in the universe are terrible for life. It’s only Garden of Eden places like Earth where it can exist.”

From 1990:

Extraterrestrials​—Where are they?

According to science writer Isaac Asimov, this is “a question that, in a way, spoils everything” for those who believe in life on other planets. Originally posed in 1950 by nuclear physicist Enrico Fermi, the question capped an argument that went something like this: If intelligent life has arisen on other planets in our galaxy, many civilizations should now exist that are millions of years ahead of our own. They should have developed interstellar travel long ago and spread abroad in the galaxy, colonizing and exploring at will. So where are they?

While some SETI scientists are admittedly shaken by this “Fermi paradox,” they often reply to it by pointing out how difficult it would be to voyage between the stars. Even at the speed of light, enormous though that is, it would take a spaceship a hundred thousand years to traverse just our own galaxy. Surpassing that speed is deemed impossible.

Science fiction that features ships hopping from one star to another in a matter of days or hours is fantasy, not science. The distances between stars are vast almost beyond our comprehension. In fact, if we could build a model of our galaxy so tiny that our sun (which is so huge that it could swallow a million earths) was shrunk to the size of an orange, the distance between the stars in this model would still average a thousand miles [some 1,500 km]!

That is why SETI scientists lean so strongly on radio telescopes; they imagine that since advanced civilizations might not travel between stars, they would still seek out other forms of life by the relatively cheap and easy means of radio waves. But Fermi’s paradox still haunts them.

American physicist Freeman J. Dyson has concluded that if advanced civilizations exist in our galaxy, finding evidence of them should be as easy as finding signs of technological civilization on Manhattan Island in New York City. The galaxy should be buzzing with alien signals and their immense engineering projects. But none have been found. In fact, one article on the subject noted that “searched, found nothing” has become like a religious chant for SETI astronomers.

A number of scientists are beginning to realize that their colleagues have made far too many optimistic assumptions in addressing this question. Such scientists come up with a much lower number of advanced civilizations in our galaxy. Some have said that there is but one​—us. Others have said that mathematically, there should be fewer than one​—even we shouldn’t be here!

The basis for their skepticism is not hard to see. It could be summed up with two questions: If such extraterrestrials existed, where would they live? And how did they get there?

‘Why, they would live on planets,’ some might reply to the first question. But there is only one planet in our solar system that is not downright hostile to life, the one we occupy. But what about the planets circling the thousands of millions of other stars in our galaxy? Might not some of them harbor life? The fact is that up to now scientists have not conclusively proved the existence of a single planet outside of our solar system. Why not?

Because to detect one is exceedingly difficult. Since stars are so distant and planets do not emit any light of themselves, detecting even a giant planet, such as Jupiter, is like trying to spot a speck of dust floating around a powerful light bulb miles away.

Even if such planets do exist​—and some indirect evidence has accumulated to indicate that they do—​this still does not mean that they orbit precisely the right kind of star in the right galactic neighborhood, at precisely the right distance from the star, and are themselves of precisely the right size and composition to sustain life.

Yet, even if many planets do exist that meet the stringent conditions necessary to sustain life as we know it, the question remains, How would life arise on those worlds? This brings us to the very foundation of the belief in beings on other worlds​—evolution.

To many scientists, it seems logical to believe that if life could evolve from nonliving matter on this planet, that could be true on others as well. As one writer put it: “The general thinking among biologists is that life will begin whenever it is given an environment where it can begin.” But that is where evolution faces an insurmountable objection. Evolutionists cannot even explain how life began on this planet.

Scientists Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe estimate that the odds against life’s vital enzymes forming by chance are one in 10^40,000 (1 with 40,000 zeros after it). Scientists Feinberg and Shapiro go still further. In their book Life Beyond Earth, they put the odds against the material in an organic soup ever taking the first rudimentary steps toward life at one in 10^1,000,000.

Do you find these cumbersome figures hard to grasp? The word “impossible” is easier to remember, and it is just as accurate. The rest of evolutionary theory is equally fraught with trouble.

Still, SETI astronomers blithely assume that life must have originated by chance all over the universe. Gene Bylinsky, in his book Life in Darwin’s Universe, speculates on the various paths evolution might have taken on alien worlds. He suggests that intelligent octopuses, marsupial men with pouches on their stomachs, and bat-​people who make musical instruments are not at all farfetched. Renowned scientists have praised his book. However, other scientists, such as Feinberg and Shapiro, see the gaping flaw in such reasoning. They decry the “weakness in the basic experimental foundations” of scientists’ theories about how life got started on earth. They note, though, that scientists nonetheless “have used these foundations to erect towers that extend to the end of the Universe.”
[continued in next comment]
edit on 31-10-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

[continuing from last comment]
‘Why,’ you may wonder, ‘do so many scientists take the impossible for granted?’ The answer is simple and rather sad. People tend to believe what they want to believe. Scientists, for all their claims of objectivity, are not exempt from this human failing.

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe observe that “the theory that life was assembled by an intelligence” is “vastly” more probable than spontaneous generation. “Indeed,” they add, “such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-​evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.” Yes, many scientists recoil from the idea of a Creator, even though the evidence points that way. In the process, they have created a religion of their own. As the above authors see it, Darwinism simply replaces the word “God” with the word “Nature.”

So in answer to the question, “Is anyone out there?” science clearly gives no grounds for belief in life on other planets. In fact, as the years pass and the silence from the stars continues, SETI is a growing embarrassment to scientists who believe in evolution. If various types of life evolve readily from nonlife, then why do we not hear from them in this vast universe? Where are they?

Visitors From Beyond?

Many people believe that man is being visited, or has been visited in the past, by extraterrestrials. Scientists generally dismiss these claims; they cite the lack of verifiable evidence in all cases and maintain that most UFO (unidentified flying object) sightings can be explained by natural phenomena. They tend to relegate the abduction claims to unexplored areas of the troubled human psyche or to psychological and religious needs.

One science-fiction writer noted: “The urge to investigate and believe in this stuff is almost religious. We used to have gods. Now we want to feel we’re not alone, watched over by protective forces.” Further, some UFO experiences reek more of the occult than of science.

But many scientists believe in “visitors” in their own way. They see the impossibility of life originating by chance here on the earth, so they claim it must have drifted here from space. Some say that aliens seeded our planet with life by sending rockets loaded with primitive bacteria. One has even suggested that aliens visited our planet ages ago and that life originated by chance from the garbage they left behind! Some scientists draw conclusions from the evidence that simple organic molecules are fairly common in space. But is that really evidence for the chance formation of life? Is a hardware store evidence that a car must accidentally build itself there?

Even if other habitable planets exist, is there any evidence that life could originate on them by chance?

But of course, you've already gone to the cop-out pure fantasy of "other types so alien to us that we simply wouldn't recognise it", implying that none of the factors considered in the Drake equation are even relevant when fantasizing about aliens that do not have the same requirements for survival as so-called "life as we know it". Not even thinking about how they actually supposedly originated by chance. Really doesn't change the amount of actual evidence that we have for these fantasies though. Which is telling compared to the evidence that is available for Creation that you deny by convincing yourself that it's not (good) evidence, or not good enough for you.
edit on 31-10-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

My first reaction. Awesome and thank you for posting.

My second reaction. Now you've really gone and done it! lol



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I would not count on kilowatt terrestrial radio signals to be detectable across the galaxy, lol.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: carsforkids

The Drake equation was never supposed to be an accurate representation because everyone involved in it knows the error margins are titanic. It's people that assume that it was who have the problem



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: galadofwarthethird




And oh! There is no god,


Some great information there boy! From someone who I can
tell knows what they're talking about just like a parrot.


Spoken like a fish in a pond. A fish who once read a book about a man in the sky.

Or wait, most devout Christians such as you, didn't even read the whole thing.



posted on Nov, 1 2019 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: galadofwarthethird




Spoken like a fish in a pond. A fish who once read a book about a man in the sky.

Or wait, most devout Christians such as you, didn't even read the whole thing.


Well I'm just as insulted as I can be.

Now can you get over your lil obsession and contribute something anything?

Seriously we could be friends! Gimme a kiss?
edit on 1-11-2019 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2019 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: carsforkids

What are you trying to say?

That Buddha does not exist?

To tell the truth, kind of forgot what this thread is about. The drake equation fallacy is in the tittle.

But considering that every believe, up to basically over 90% of believes humans have had. Have shown themselves to be false.

Well that's not trending to well, now is it. When history has shown that everything people believe is ultimately, just so much bunk and dodo on the road. So which god and believe do you partake in? Because I am not going to lie.

But I forgot.



posted on Nov, 1 2019 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: carsforkids

What are you trying to say?

That Buddha does not exist?

To tell the truth, kind of forgot what this thread is about. The drake equation fallacy is in the tittle.

But considering that every believe, up to basically over 90% of believes humans have had. Have shown themselves to be false.

Well that's not trending to well, now is it. When history has shown that everything people believe is ultimately, just so much bunk and dodo on the road. So which god and believe do you partake in? Because I am not going to lie.

But I forgot.


Finally! Something I can understand!



posted on Nov, 1 2019 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: ATruGod

Don't say that. Now he is gonna quote a Bible verse as his "extraordinary evidence



posted on Nov, 1 2019 @ 10:09 AM
link   
No matter the theory ! We live in an observable universe bound by laws ! We all as humans have the ability to create and experience all we want through our internal Soul . The true question that can not be answered is this ! When I’m asleep or meditating I can be involved in a limitless cosmos of The Ancient of Days . We try to define that which is and isn’t . We have an internal being that belongs to the fabric of Creation outside of dimension and time . Man is born a picture and Grown men cut that picture into pieces to create a mysterious puzzle out of us . There is no mystery but the inner boundless one . There is a beginning and an end ! Mans actions have nothing to do with it . We are God folks ! Fall fast asleep of this world and find the sleeping Soul that has zero boundaries as it is of Nothing and Everything limited only by our tuning to it’s always present existence. If you find a rose put it on a cross !



posted on Nov, 1 2019 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

it is quite ammusing that you cite Wickramasinghe

have you actually read the latest paper he contributed to ?

or infact anything published in " support " of the H-W hypothesis ???



posted on Nov, 1 2019 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: neformore




You do realise that if there is one habitable planet hosting intelligent life, in every galaxy (not star... galaxy) that we can see then the universe is teeming with life?


No I don't and I don't understand how you can? Without severely wanting to as your
motivation.



He can because of probabilities. Period.

The universe is so large it’s legitimately hard to comprehend it’s scale - it’s effectively infinite. With that comes the logic that and infinite number of outcomes are possible.

We also know that there are planets in the “Goldilocks zone” around many, many other stars. This suggests that there is a reasonable probability of life elsewhere.

It’s a theory and math that helps quantify a probability. That’s it.

Now, to your OP, that’s entirely possible but I find it improbable. To the point many others made, at minimum we can observe real information to formulate our hypothesis about life elsewhere in the universe.

But, if you blindly believe in “god” and “creation” then sure - your argument makes sense. But that seems like a pretty sophomoric view of the world given all of the information we have available to us.



posted on Nov, 1 2019 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: whereislogic

it is quite ammusing that you cite Wickramasinghe

Any more amusing then when I quote Darwin, Dawkins, Hawking, Hoyle, Ward, Brownlee, Feinberg, Shapiro, Asimov, Dyson, Bylinsky or Fermi? (the first 3 I have regularly quoted in the past in this forum)


have you actually read the latest paper he contributed to ?

No, any good reason to do so? I try not to waste too much time on unverified speculations and wishful thinking trying to sell philosophical naturalism as "science" or under that marketinglabel. I find their occasional admittals regarding the problems with the evolutionary storylines of their fellow philosophical naturalists, much more interesting. And I don't need to waste my time with reading their entire papers with their own flawed evolutionary storylines (panspermia and directed panspermia*) for those.

*: the aliens responsible for the directed panspermia in this storyline are assumed to have evolved on another planet, thus, it's still an evolutionary storyline (not to mention that the bacteria said to have been seeded on earth in this storyline are assumed to have evolved into all the other lifeforms on earth, another baseless assumption making use of people's belief in the myth that mutations provide the raw materials for this kind of evolution).

Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.19

[19. Nobel Lectures, Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962, 1999, “The Production of Mutations,” by H. J. Muller, 1946, p. 162.]

Source: Evolution—Myths and Facts


originally posted by: ignorant_ape

or infact anything published in " support " of the H-W hypothesis ???

I don't allow myself to be distracted from the argument of induction (or conclusion by induction) regarding Creation and an intelligent Creator by means of fanciful stories referred to as hypotheses. I follow Newton's advice for a proper scientific method, or method to discover facts/certainties/truths about reality, in so doing acquiring knowledge/science about reality.

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

That method has been proven effective by Newton and everyone who has followed it in the sciences since. Much more effective than desperate speculation and attempts to come up with a storyline that fits the desires born out of philosophical naturalism (to somehow make the evolutionary storyline sound like it fits logically, especially to those who don't know the detailed problems* with whatever flavor of evolutionary storyline is presented, and those who don't want to know or don't wanna hear it because it doesn't tickle their ears).

*: You've got all the same problems in space (or on planets in outer space):

edit on 1-11-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2019 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: carsforkids
Why? Did you have some big bombastic point to reveal? Something to
do with the topic hopefully?


Well, if you're going to reply to me in the tone of a pompous prick, I'll return the favour in kind.

The point is that the book was written by humans, some with the best of intentions and some with the worst. There is no evidence of a god, there are only stories and fables that hold no better place in history than the legends of people like the egyptians, celts, ancient indians, chinese and aboriginal cultures across the world.

And yet you are citing it as some kind of evidence, while claiming that a though experiment on the number of intelligent civilisations in the universe is bunk.

If you can't understand that claiming something doesn't exist by citing something that doesn't exist as evidence is bunk - but then go on to try as cite that as logic, then you really haven't thought this through on a forum where there are a lot of intelligent posters and clear critical thinkers.

So you are being either massively hypocritical, or you are an idiot, or you are simply here to troll people.

At this point, my thoughts lean to the latter because you certainly don't appear to want to have a discussion on the issue - several posters have attempted to engage you on the subject and all you have done is attempt to belittle them.

Obvious troll is...obvious.
edit on 1/11/19 by neformore because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2019 @ 01:03 PM
link   
We started from the bottom now we here.



posted on Nov, 1 2019 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
But of course, you've already gone to the cop-out pure fantasy of "other types so alien to us that we simply wouldn't recognise it", implying that none of the factors considered in the Drake equation are even relevant when fantasizing about aliens that do not have the same requirements for survival as so-called "life as we know it". Not even thinking about how they actually supposedly originated by chance. Really doesn't change the amount of actual evidence that we have for these fantasies though. Which is telling compared to the evidence that is available for Creation that you deny by convincing yourself that it's not (good) evidence, or not good enough for you.


Interesting post. Took me a while to get through it but the last paragraph here crystallised my thoughts.

Some interesting reading for you

Hypothetical types of Biochemistry

The key I think you have missed is "intelligent', that or you are defining it by our own standard, which I guess is a common thing to do because that is all we know, but say - a silicon or ammonia based life form that is truly alien to ourselves as carbon based life - is likely to see the universe (literally and figuratively) differently to us, and may rely on forms of communication or technology that we have not developed or thought of.

Of course, that is hypothetical, but so is the Drake equation (and God) and I certainly don't rule out the fact that I may be wrong about it all.

Ironically, I have faith that I'm not.



posted on Nov, 1 2019 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore




Well, if you're going to reply to me in the tone of a pompous prick, I'll return the favour in kind.



Blah Blah Blah at least I didn't resort to child like name calling
and violate the T&C massively. I suspect you have some favor here.

Anyway

My retort is anything but lengthy. The mark of intelligence is everywhere
right down to our own genome. Denying this is just another fallacy in the
long list to deny the real truth that is wide open for silly scientific denials.

These denials are obviously born of a disease called hate as you display
them redundantly. There is no logic at all anywhere to be found in any
theory born of that hate. But you have a free will to continue believing
total horse crap and good luck with that.



edit on 1-11-2019 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2019 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: carsforkids

The Fermi Paradox counters the Drake Equation to some degree.




Even in Sci-Fi like Star Wars they are only dealing with 1 Galaxy, but it is full of life of all types.
The possibility that the Milky Way galaxy has no life but us, is real.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join