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: 66
16
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2020 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Ptolemy. Ptolemy, Latin in full Claudius Ptolemaeus (fl. AD 127-145, Alexandria), ancient astronomer, geographer, and mathematician who considered the Earth the center of the universe (the "Ptolemaic system").

science
/ˈsʌɪəns/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

astronomy
/əˈstrɒnəmi/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the branch of science which deals with celestial objects, space, and the physical universe as a whole.

Geography is considered a science and thus also uses the scientific method for data collection, analysis, and interpretation.

Geocentric model
Any theory of the structure of the solar system (or the universe) in which Earth is assumed to be at the centre of it all. The most highly developed geocentric model was that of Ptolemy of Alexandria (2nd century CE). It was generally accepted until the 16th century, after which it was superseded by heliocentric models such as that of Nicolaus Copernicus.

Even the American Institute of Physics refer to him as a scientist:
history.aip.org...

The fact his Theories were proven to be false after general acceptance for over a 1000 years doesn't really reflect well on Astronomy as a science which is obviously why you are ostracising him. Sure, he picked and chose which observations and
data to use in his texts, don't all scientists?

Ironically it's your philosophical and ideological beliefs which are causing your confirmation bias.

You could argue the separation of science from theology began with Aristotle, however to think that somehow the foundations of science began with Copernicus is ridiculous.




posted on Jan, 7 2020 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic




My conclusion: The Drake equation is about as useful as an equation to speculate about the number of advanced civilizations of pink unicorns living on other planets in our universe, originating there by chance.


You also didn't prove evolution is impossible, just far beyond your ability to fathom. A million years of stewing chemicals can have that effect.


Allegedly, purely hypothetical speculation, no-one can prove the origins of life.

Since we're on the "i love Tzar" train, i also respect your opinions and not looking to ruffle feathers. Although i come across as confrontational i tend to get straight to the point without communicating my compassion for others opinions well. I do reflect on what people say and i do attempt to look at things from their perspective.


edit on 7/1/20 by Grenade because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Can we see the equation where you calculated the odds of life developing by chance? I would like to know how you arrived at the conclusion that it is impossible.

That's a little odd to say (the bolded part), since the usage of the description "impossible" regarding the development/evolution of life by chance (and individual components of that storyline, individual steps in synthesis as James Tour would say), was discussed in my commentary on page 6, repeated again on page 7 in response to neformore (the first comment of mine that you responded to), then in my first response to you on page 9, then again in the subsequent response to neformore, then again straight after that. And then comes the real kicker, my comment to OccamsRazor04, where I actually explain how I don't put that much stock in the actual calculations being made by evolutionists and philosophical naturalists like the ones given as examples up till that point, because they are already too generous to the philosophy/idea, skipping past some inconvenient insurmountable problems that really "cause the odds of this happening to be best described by the phrase I prefer: 'no way in hell!'" (rather than the numbers suggested up till that point). Or as some of them themselves put it when I was combining the 2 quotations (their proposed odds calculations and estimations + their commentary about these numbers in relation to a "universal soup") on page 64 (first comment).

Here's some of what I said in response to OccamsRazor04 (the first quotation is referring to Feinberg's and Shapiro's number):

... the real issue, what is the chance, or are the odds of this mythological event to occur in a universe that consists of less than 10^100 atoms and has existed less than 15 billion years (limiting the amount of events where atoms and molecules interact, the amount of possible chemical reactions by chance according to the forces of nature). ... referring to the earlier quoted estimates of the odds regarding some specific components of this evolutionary storyline. Like "the odds against the material in an organic soup ever taking the first rudimentary steps toward life at one in 10^1,000,000" ...
...
Just to be clear, I don't actually agree with the numbers quoted there because the people coming up with these numbers have a tendency to be too generous to the storyline in skipping some problems that cause the odds of this happening to be best described by the phrase I prefer: 'no way in hell!' (there are insurmountable hurdles for this to happen by chance and the forces of nature alone, that cannot be put in such numbers because they are insurmountable, the forces of nature on their own operating by chance do not have the effect of creating or developing machinery and technology from individual molecules and their chemical reactions governed solely by the earlier mentioned causal factors; or as James Tour puts it at 10:25-14:10 in the video shared earlier: "Molecules don't care about life. Organisms care about life. Chemistry, on the contrary is utterly indifferent to life. Without a biologically derived entity acting upon them, molecules have never been shown to evolve toward life. Never." ...


...
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.”

Why have scientists aware of this failed to “blow the whistle”? “If Darwinism were not considered socially desirable . . . it would of course be otherwise,” answers the book. When an entire society “becomes committed to a particular set of concepts, educational continuity makes it exceedingly hard to change the pattern,” it adds. “You either have to believe the concepts or you will be branded a heretic.” Evolutionists fear that any retreat would “open the flood-gates” of irrationalism. In other words, even cracking the door to the only possible alternative​—creation by a higher intelligence—​would force them to face all the issues that such a conclusion implies.

Hence, after acknowledging that intelligence must somehow have been involved in bringing life into existence, the authors continue: “Indeed, 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.”⁠(24) Thus an observer might conclude that a “psychological” barrier is the only plausible explanation as to why most evolutionists cling to a chance origin for life and reject any “design or purpose or directedness,”⁠(25) as Dawkins expressed it. Indeed, even Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, after acknowledging the need for intelligence, say that they do not believe a personal Creator is responsible for the origin of life.⁠(26) In their thinking, intelligence is mandatory, but a Creator is unacceptable. Do you find that contradictory?
...
24. Evolution From Space, pp. 30, 31.

25. The Selfish Gene, p. 14.

26. Evolution From Space, p. 31.

Source: Could Life Originate by Chance? (between brackets was mine)

You'd think at least some of that would have crossed the barrier by now. Unless perhaps you don't wanna hear it? Or admit that the usage of the word "impossible" was well justified in numerous ways? This is one of my few comments where I actually didn't repeat the part where I repeated the justification for the word "impossible" as I explained it near the end of my first comment in this thread. But that's mostly because I feel I've repeated it enough for now. Some people just don't want to admit that it's perfectly reasonable to reach that conclusion from the evidence available, everything we know about the machinery, technology and code that makes up living organisms (biology), what kind of chemical reactions will happen to specific types of molecules (chemistry, James Tour gets deeper into this) and physics. You don't need much math when the chance of something specific happening is non-existent (0?), i.e. it's never gonna happen, or in this context, it never happened that way, by chance (coincidence). For some people, saying it like that can perhaps help them understand something they don't want to accept, acknowledge or hear, certain other people, can be very stubborn no matter how you put it:

edit on 8-1-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
You presume that intelligence came from non-intelligence and support the Drake equation. Yet you think it is "special pleading" for me to postulate that intelligent things require intelligent creators?

You have tossed logic out the window.


What are you talking about? I don't presume anything, I admit not knowing where the universe and life came from. YOU are the one assuming that because intelligence exists, it must come from another intelligence. That is a self defeating argument when you special plead and invoke a being that breaks your ONE RULE. I clearly demonstrated your fallacy for you but you STILL deny it. Stop projecting and make an argument that isn't fallacious for once.




edit on 1 8 20 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: carsforkids
Sorry I can speculate and postulate about God all I want.
As much as you wish you were a tyrant and could stop me
from showing the perfect sense of it all you can't. Why you
are so determined to be completely one hundred percent wrong
about something so important is on you. But you not
wanting others to read for themselves what they will never
read or hear any where else is fanatical. I got you're goat pal and
you've made it obvious. You want to drag others down with you
as far as I'm concerned. Science has nothing to do with proving
the existence of God and yet the only way you know how to argue
is thru science.

You must be joking!


Waaaaaaaa! Big mean atheist just debunked my argument. Waaaaaaaaaaaa!

Grow up, kid. You sound like an ass clown. I never said you aren't allowed to speculate, I'm just refuting the lie that your speculation is probable or factual. It's not. It's your personal beliefs, and that's fine if you want to believe it, but your constant lies and projection is seriously getting old. You are making yourself look more childish with every comment you post now. It's like sniveling 6 year old whining about not being giving a cookie. You have to earn that cookie, kiddo. Whining like a baby isn't an argument.

edit on 1 8 20 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Joecroft




Your equation is only interested in finding out the probability of life existing out there and your equation would work whether the Universe was created by God or Not…


I absolutely love you!

No Barcs this member gets it Pal. lol

You are the first one to say it perfectly.

You get a cookie!



So you agree with me that he gets it? Great! Unfortunately for you, you don't realize that he just debunked your entire thread.



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Grenade

Science is a method. Please demonstrate that method being used regarding Geocentrism. Funny how you completely deflected away from that by cherry picking and quoting silly irrelevant definitions of words. Stop using red herrings and provide what I requested. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'll admit it, but I've never seen any supporting tests for geocentrism, and have never seen how it is falsifiable.

Keep in mind that YOU set these standards by claiming it was a scientific theory. That has a very specific meaning in science. It doesn't mean an archaic 2nd century scientist says so. Whether the guy was a scientist or not, doesn't change the fact that he was being forced to support a religious view during a time when the only other option was death.

In the early days of Christianity if they published a heliocentric or any non geocentric model (EVEN IF TRUE) they would have been executed for blasphemy right? They even fought Galileo when he tried and that was 1500 years later. Geocentrism was a church position accepted via confirmation bias mostly and that view was forced on people. Comparing that to modern scientific theories is ridiculous, it doesn't compare.


edit on 1 8 20 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

What a load of gibberish.

For a start you just used the word 2nd century scientist to describe Ptolemy in your own words.

Secondly, Greece at the time of Ptolemy was polytheistic, this is at a time when Christianity wasn't even established. If you want to understand the separation of theology from science then you should read the work of Aristotle as i previously stated.

So, you've admitted he is a Scientist, have made false claims about his religious views and your whole post is a complete contradiction of itself.

That's not how to admit you are wrong. Are you now saying he was a scientist or you sitting on the fence?

I've provided you with his scientific method many times now, it's publicly available, called the Almagest or Syntaxis Mathematica. It uses mathematics, geometry, physics, observation and experimentation to make accurate predictions, why don't you have a look at his method instead of claiming it doesn't exist.

Again, are you really asserting that science was born with Copernicus and Heliocentric model? How can a progressive method spring out of nothing.

Just plain stupid.

edit on 8/1/20 by Grenade because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Definitions of words are quite important, especially when you have someone purposely re-defining them to fit their argument.

The Ptolemaic-system was an accurate predictive model.

It actually describes and predicts planetary motion very well.

edit on 8/1/20 by Grenade because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: neformore
...
If one really wants to believe something is possible, the word "impossible" can indeed be a hard thing to swallow. As demonstrated in this thread. Nevertheless, regarding the notion of the spontaneous generation of life by chance in any imaginable environment, the word “impossible” is easy to remember, and it is just as accurate as any of the figures proposed by the scientists* mentioned in my initial comment; ... (*: and evolutionists and philosophical naturalists)

Once more because it can't be stated enough:


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.


Any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. ...


originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: TzarChasm
...
Some people just don't want to admit that it's perfectly reasonable to reach that conclusion from the evidence available, everything we know about the machinery, technology and code that makes up living organisms (biology), what kind of chemical reactions will happen to specific types of molecules (chemistry, James Tour gets deeper into this*) and physics. You don't need much math when the chance of something specific happening is non-existent (0?), i.e. it's never gonna happen, or in this context, it never happened that way, by chance (coincidence).

*:

...or as James Tour puts it at 10:25-14:10 in the video shared earlier: "Molecules don't care about life. Organisms care about life. Chemistry, on the contrary is utterly indifferent to life. Without a biologically derived entity acting upon them, molecules have never been shown to evolve toward life. Never."

That would be this one, it has some important details to consider regarding my usage of the word "impossible" and other related phrases, it is all part of my justification and reasons for describing the evolutionary idea I've been talking about as such, there's much more than just the timeframes mentioned there as well:

If someone cares about knowing my justification or reasons for using the word "impossible", it''s not hard to get it from my commentary + the videos I've been sharing. Here are some more important reasons I'm using that word, having to do with the topic of interdependency and the interactome of cells, and what it means for the gradual step by step evolutionary storyline over long periods of time (after 7:23 and the interactome is first mentioned after the question at 16:30):

Regarding something he says from 10:20 - 13:05 (a topic that is also raised from 12:03 - 14:10 in the 1st video):

How Did Life Begin? (The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking)

In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”(1)

1. How Life Began​—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.

a. Life Itself​—Its Origin and Nature, by Francis Crick, 1981, pp. 15-16, 141-153.

And the same counts if we're talking about the "spontaneous appearance"/ spontaneous generation/ development/ (chemical) evolution of life by chance on other planets.
edit on 8-1-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 12:21 PM
link   
wrong comment.

Ok I'll use this one for the context of the subjects discussed in the last video then:

Interdependency: Unicellular Yeast Cell Interactome & Linux Kernel Design+Development Visualization

Once I consider the subject of interdependency, it really stops the whole evolutionary anti-creation marketing campaign dead in its tracks from my point of view.
edit on 8-1-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
YOU are the one assuming that because intelligence exists, it must come from another intelligence.


Do you admit that intelligent systems are much more likely to be created by an intelligent being rather than by random chance?
edit on 8-1-2020 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I just threw a load of old electronics out. My fear is Optimus Prime kills someone at the local dump.



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Grenade

GIBBERISH? Are you serious?

Are you going to post the tests or keep repeating nonsense? I clearly stated why it's not scientific theory. Demonstrate the method being used or stop responding. You can't call something science if it doesn't follow the method and you can't call something unfalsifiable and untestable a scientific theory.



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
YOU are the one assuming that because intelligence exists, it must come from another intelligence.


Do you admit that intelligent systems are much more likely to be created by an intelligent being rather than by random chance?


Do you admit that religions are much more likely to be created by man than influenced by an intelligent being?



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

You avoid the question because you know deep inside that it is obvious that intelligent ordered systems are much more likely to have been created by intelligence rather than random chance.



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I see the religious extremists still deny believing in aliens when their god/s are literally aliens.

Guess that means they don’t believe their own god/s exist?



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Grenade


I’m done with the forum pal.


4 days later and still here.

I’ve noticed a theme with these religious extremists. They lie A LOT.



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Is that intelligence creates intelligence, apart from that one time?

I actually love reading your posts. It reminds me why religious extremists are a joke and why they should be laughed at.



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Barcs

You avoid the question because you know deep inside that it is obvious that intelligent ordered systems are much more likely to have been created by intelligence rather than random chance.


You avoid my question because you know deep inside that it is obvious that humans wrote all religions, including yours, not any intelligent being.

Once again, you state presuppositions as fact.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join