It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Likewise, not believing the claim "there is a god" without evidence does not mean believing that there isn't one.
Originally posted by carsforkids
The fallacy doesn't rely on theology
I mean, for example...couldn’t Angels be classified as other life existing out there...?
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic
It seems you are confusing the Drake equation with an evolution vs creation debate. The likelihood of other life exhibiting our intelligence or greater intelligence is a separate subject from "how did life happen".
originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: TzarChasm
I already explained how evolution is relevant in my initial comment when I said:
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?
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. [* edit: i.e. 'forged by evolution'; see wikipedia quotation further below, an idea sometimes simply hinted at or triggered in the audience by the mere use of the verb "develop" or evolve, see factor f1 in the Drake equation as described on wiki] 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.”
Two months later, Harvard University astronomy professor Harlow Shapley speculated on the number of inhabited planets in the universe, saying "The universe has 10 million, million, million suns (10 followed by 18 zeros) similar to our own. One in a million has planets around it. Only one in a million million has the right combination of chemicals, temperature, water, days and nights to support planetary life as we know it. This calculation arrives at the estimated figure of 100 million worlds where life has been forged by evolution."
When confronted with the astronomical odds against a living cell forming by chance, some evolutionists feel forced to back away. In their book Evolution From Space, the noted British astronomers Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe assert that the chances of life’s springing from some ancient random mixing of chemicals are so “outrageously small” as to be absurd “even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” (which we know it doesn't) They give up, saying: “These issues are too complex to set numbers to.” They add: “There is no way . . . in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one.” They write that “Darwinian evolution is most unlikely to get even one polypeptide [chain of essential life substances] right, let alone the thousands on which living cells depend for survival. This situation is well known to geneticists and yet nobody seems to blow the whistle decisively on the theory.”
The Drake equation is a statement that stimulates intellectual curiosity about the universe around us, for helping us to understand that life as we know it is the end product of a natural, cosmic evolution [whereislogic: i.e. life "originated by chance", "a living cell forming by chance", "forged by evolution", something that has still been calculated to be actually impossible] , and for helping us realize how much we are a part of that universe. What the equation and the search for life has done is focus science on some of the other questions about life in the universe, specifically abiogenesis, the development [me: evolution] of multi-cellular life and the development of intelligence itself.
originally posted by: cooperton
The first intelligence didn't need to be created, because it always existed.
You think from a limited 3rd temporal perspective, but this higher intelligence would by definition not be limited by the things in the lower dimensions. This makes sense in light of Newton's law that something cannot come from nothing. The only way around this is that something always existed, and never required to come from nothing. This is the primordial always-existent (alpha-omega) intelligence from which all things came.
. You wonder why I'm constantly laughing at you.
originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Barcs
Do atheists lack belief in God? Reject the notion of creation? Or, rule out the existence of intelligent design altogether?
I'd suggest although these BELIEFS are closely related they aren't mutually inclusive.
Wouldn't this be better described as agnosticism?
originally posted by: carsforkids
The burden of proof is a matter of perspective.
To me the claim there is no God is the wildest most ignorant
claim in the history of consciousness because of all the evidence
I see every time I open my eyes.
So you need to back your claim up if you want to challenge
a worldwide traditional belief system that doesn't sound nearly
as hokey as what atheism purposes.
originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: carsforkids
As quite a few others have stated the Drake Equation just deals with the probability of life existing…based on what we can currently see and measure in our known universe etc…
The Drake Equation neither supports or denies the existence of God.
Imagine all the other scientific theories that don't factor in a God into their equations…does that mean they are all fallacies too...No...of course it doesn't..That’s just how science works. Science has to deal with what it can see and measure, which is why God is kept out of the equation.
I personally believe in a creator God...but can also see based on probability, logic and the fact that life has been proven to exist and thrive in even the most harshest of conditions on Earth…that their must be life out there somewhere…it stands to reason imo...
It's exactly the same as the claim that there is a god.