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: 70
16
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Just so you know, I have a strong feeling that you are deliberately playing dumb, being deliberately obtuse about supposedly not seeing that the point has already been sufficiently proven and demonstrated by the experiments and observations in biology, chemistry, and physics and by mathematics as applied to the relevant subjects. Followed up by the Jim Carrey-thingy, believing it to be possible by means of stubborn denial of any information or suggestion (as in the lady's commentary in that scene) that it's not (doing the Baldrick-thingy); that is denial by using the underlying agnostic attitudes I explained before (denial that it is factual/certain/conclusive, that it is a well-established fact that it is "impossible", as also established and explained how one can tell on page 6. So one can think of it as "possible" no matter how implausible, and desperately hold on to that notion, not willing to let go of the myth and not accepting anything that might make you have to merely consider that it is impossible; like an allergy to the word "impossible" when applied in this context, or even beyond that as those do who follow the agnostic code that speaks about some rather ridiculous supposed possibilities as well, basically boiling down to the oft repeated creedal dogma that 'given enough time anything is possible').

I once heard a fan of this particular evolutionary philosophy admit that when he began to see and understand where he was wrong about evolution and creation, he still didn't really want to admit it to the ones he regularly debated with on this subject. It was just too embarassing for him you see. Perhaps till this day he hasn't admitted it to them.

Pride and fear are 2 emotions heavily played on by propagandists. It has quite the long-term effect on the human psyche.

Playing on the Emotions
...
Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

Oh btw, you can also fill in other negative character attributes for the word "stupid" there. Such as: closedminded, a smart-ass 'know it all', longwinded, full of oneself, having mental issues ("mental illness" was used in the philosophy forum in a thread you recently participated in, "insane" was used by Dawkins in the quotation of him that I used there and in this thread recently), etc.

Just because it's been a while, some people just don't wanna hear it or get the message that it's not gonna happen, that it is impossible that it's going to happen. Some others just don't want to hurt someone's feelings too much so they aren't crystal clear about it, even though it's still made pretty obvious to the one that doesn't want to hear it:

edit on 12-1-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

Because we live in a galaxy where the stars are rotating around the galactic center at a similar pace and it takes 250 million years for our sun to even complete one lap. Of course we aren't going to see major changes in a thousand years, LMFAO! We do see some changes, however, and can calculate exactly where the stars will be a million years from now. Certain stars went supernova as well during that time so the stars are not the exact same as ancient times. But as I said, 1000 years is like a nano second compared to 250 million years.



If there was any sort of valid proof, for any single one of those claims, it would've been shown, ages ago. But nothing has been proven.

Claiming that all the stars above Earth are somehow rotating as a single, infinitely massive group, around a galaxy, while Earth rotates around the same galaxy, around the same speed, are actually several different claims, which you've mixed together, as one argument.

All of the claims have no proof, obviously. Batching them together doesn't make it any better, btw.


You also forgot to mention your non-existent, non-proven force called 'gravity', yields it's endless superpowers, and binds the entire galaxy, as one group, which makes everything rotate around and around in space, too.


When we see all the same stars, in the same positions, exactly the same distance apart, since day one, and ever since, you claim that is due to how stars are so distant from Earth, and rotate like Earth, at the same speed, it only APPEARS to us that stars don't move, haven't moved, haven't changed, at all!!

If you look at stars above you, from two different points on Earth, say, 500 miles apart, do you think you'd see all the very same stars, in the exact same relative position, from one another....at both points?

No. Even if you saw the same stars, in both places, their relative position to one another is NOT the same.

If Earth and stars all rotate around a galaxy, at about the same speed, for thousands of years at least, you would never see the same stars, in the same relative positions. If Earth was even a few miles an hour slower than stars, we'd never see the same stars in the same relative positions, within a week or so. 5 mph slower is 500 miles difference every 100 hours, or every 5 days. On Earth, stars change relative positions, over 500 miles distance.

Your claims are complete nonsense.


Polaris somehow magically stays in the very same position, from day one, and ever afterwards, while Earth and Polaris are speeding through space, rotating around a galaxy, and somehow, it stays in the same exact position above Earth, and is the only star, among millions of stars above Earth, which stays in the one, same position above Earth. Why would a single star not move around, like other stars, is rather odd. But when it is at the exact north point above Earth, that doesn't seem very likely as random chance, at all. One star that doesn't move, maybe so, but the one perfect point above Earth, at the exact center point, cannot be random chance. No way.

It works perfectly with the flat Earth, obviously. Polaris is the central star, and stays in place, while the OTHER stars move, and rotate, around Polaris, and above the Earth. And that explains it perfectly, and easily.



posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade
And yet if there’s anyone around to read this thread in another 1000 years they will laugh at our current theories in light of technological advancement.


You can't possibly know that. This is where your fallacy is. You think because modern science is much better today than it was 1000 years ago, that it means 1000 years from now our current science will be obsolete but that's nonsense. Since the modern scientific method, the reliability of our inquiry has been super effective. Undoubtedly we will have much more knowledge in 1000 years and refine our knowledge on many things, but to say we will laugh at the theories of today as we laugh at geocentrisim is unsubstantiated conjecture. It is definitely comparing apples to oranges.


Our scientific method will change but we should not discount those who led by example for nothing is certain and we should always be adaptable.


No, the methodology will stay the same, but our KNOWLEDGE will change. Big difference.


An accurate model of the stars based on astronomical observation was a wonder of science and logic 1500 years ago and you are exactly the type of person who would be hailing Ptolemy as a maverick of logic, reason, method, obvervation and experimentation.


Why would I hail him and what experimentation are you referring to? Just stop with this silliness. You might as well argue witch doctors are part of medical science.



posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Please get some help before you shoot up a school. Asking for a friend.



posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Again you have missed the point.

The all knowing barcs and his rules on who and what constitutes science.

Good luck with that attitude.

Unfortunately you have made yourself look a fool with this particular debate.

I wish you all the best however I can’t compete with your arrogance any longer.



posted on Jan, 13 2020 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Grenade

No, it's you that missed the point. You called geocentrism a scientific theory when it never qualified as such. You were wrong, and instead of just admitting it you keep making all kinds of weak excuses and double down on your ignorance using mostly red herrings. I'm not the one making the standards of what qualifies as science and what does not. That is academia, which constitutes of the world's leading scientists. I gave you multiple links explaining what a scientific theory is and what qualifies as science and you completely ignored them. Your silly insults are meaningless, you proved my point for me by failing to name a single falsifiable test or experiment.

Next time don't make false claims and I won't say anything. Comparing "science" 2000 years ago to today is laughably absurd. It's apples to oranges and I completely demolished you in this discussion. Bringing up geocentrism as some kind of detriment to science and the future of such is pure 100% nonsense based on your own ignorant speculation. You might as well be arguing that alchemy proves that in 1000 years chemistry will be wrong. It's silly.

edit on 1 13 20 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2020 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: TzarChasm

Just so you know, I have a strong feeling that you are deliberately playing dumb, being deliberately obtuse about supposedly not seeing that the point has already been sufficiently proven and demonstrated by the experiments and observations in biology, chemistry, and physics and by mathematics as applied to the relevant subjects. Followed up by the Jim Carrey-thingy, believing it to be possible by means of stubborn denial of any information or suggestion (as in the lady's commentary in that scene) that it's not (doing the Baldrick-thingy); that is denial by using the underlying agnostic attitudes I explained before (denial that it is factual/certain/conclusive, that it is a well-established fact that it is "impossible", as also established and explained how one can tell on page 6. So one can think of it as "possible" no matter how implausible, and desperately hold on to that notion, not willing to let go of the myth and not accepting anything that might make you have to merely consider that it is impossible; like an allergy to the word "impossible" when applied in this context, or even beyond that as those do who follow the agnostic code that speaks about some rather ridiculous supposed possibilities as well, basically boiling down to the oft repeated creedal dogma that 'given enough time anything is possible').

I once heard a fan of this particular evolutionary philosophy admit that when he began to see and understand where he was wrong about evolution and creation, he still didn't really want to admit it to the ones he regularly debated with on this subject. It was just too embarassing for him you see. Perhaps till this day he hasn't admitted it to them.

Pride and fear are 2 emotions heavily played on by propagandists. It has quite the long-term effect on the human psyche.

Playing on the Emotions
...
Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

Oh btw, you can also fill in other negative character attributes for the word "stupid" there. Such as: closedminded, a smart-ass 'know it all', longwinded, full of oneself, having mental issues ("mental illness" was used in the philosophy forum in a thread you recently participated in, "insane" was used by Dawkins in the quotation of him that I used there and in this thread recently), etc.

Just because it's been a while, some people just don't wanna hear it or get the message that it's not gonna happen, that it is impossible that it's going to happen. Some others just don't want to hurt someone's feelings too much so they aren't crystal clear about it, even though it's still made pretty obvious to the one that doesn't want to hear it:


You keep saying it's impossible but your math proves otherwise. Anything that isnt 0% is still a chance given the right materials and enough time. 0% here means absolutely impossible like a talking snake or a global flood.



posted on Jan, 13 2020 @ 10:50 PM
link   
even if we were i don't see why that would refute the drake equation.



posted on Jan, 14 2020 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: namehere
even if we were i don't see why that would refute the drake equation.


True. There is no need for belief in a supreme creator (if a person is so inclined) to preclude other intelligent life in the universe.

Even the Catholic Church has made allowances for the existence of intelligent life elsewhere. The chief astronomer of the Vatican Observatory has said he thinks ET civilizations are likely.


edit on 1/14/2020 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2020 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: namehere
even if we were i don't see why that would refute the drake equation.


True. There is no need for belief in a supreme creator (if a person is so inclined) to preclude other intelligent life in the universe.

Even the Catholic Church has made allowances for the existence of intelligent life elsewhere. The chief astronomer of the Vatican Observatory has said he thinks ET civilizations are likely.



It all comes down to "humans are stuck so far up their own crack they can't imagine that the universe was caused by anything except a larger more magical version of themselves"
edit on 14-1-2020 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2020 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

True. There is no need for belief in a supreme creator (if a person is so inclined) to preclude other intelligent life in the universe.

Even the Catholic Church has made allowances for the existence of intelligent life elsewhere. The chief astronomer of the Vatican Observatory has said he thinks ET civilizations are likely.



Discrediting the possibility for extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional life is not the fallacy the drake equation makes. The drake equations fallacy is that it does not account an intelligent force in the creation of life. This would remarkably increase the likelihood of things coming to be, but the drake equation goes off the assumption that life came to be by random chance. Life coming to be by random chance is absurd due to the mathematical predictability of physical and chemical laws that are purposefully perpetuating life at every moment. I am not the only one who perceives this as the case:


Oxford Professor of Mathematics John Lennox holds that atheism is an inferior world view to that of theism and attributes to C.S. Lewis the best formulation of Merton's thesis that science sits more comfortably with theistic notions on the basis that Men became scientific in Western Europe in the 16th and 17th century "Because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.' In other words, it was belief in God that was the motor that drove modern science". American geneticist Francis Collins also cites Lewis as persuasive in convincing him that theism is the more rational world view than atheism for these same reasons.






What the secular thought-police don't tell you is that many of the greatest thinkers of all time have perceived this same reality - Life and Cosmos act according to particular order, this order must have come from something intelligible to implement it. We would expect this universe to come to be by random chance as much as we would expect a ford truck to come to be by random chance: absolutely 0% likely. Even a created object as simple as a garage door opener couldn't come to be by random chance. The creation of intelligible laws and objects requires intelligent input.

It is by definition unintelligent to think the world came to be without intelligence.
edit on 14-1-2020 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

and here is the utter scientific illiteracy * of ATS member " cooperton " laid bare


The drake equations fallacy is that it does not account an intelligent force in the creation of life


sigh - as you have been told repeatedly - and would know if you actually read any primary sources on the drake equation

the equation NEVER addresses or attempts to address the reasons or mechanisms for events - only the possibility of thier occurance

this is fundamental - but you persist in your willfull ignorance

. why ?



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
the equation NEVER addresses or attempts to address the reasons or mechanisms for events - only the possibility of thier occurance




As shown above, The drake equation does address the mechanism. It goes into the odds of stars and environments on planets forming in the proper zone to allow intelligent life to form. The probability of these occurrences is astronomically higher if there is a guiding intelligent force behind it. Do you understand that? The existence of intelligence insists that intelligence is involved in the process.

For example, if a Ford truck factory wants to create some Ford trucks, the odds are very high that it will come to be. But, if we were to wait for a Ford truck to be created by random chance, then the odds are astronomically low, and realistically impossible.
edit on 15-1-2020 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

First of all I just want to point out that I believe in a Creator and not that the Universe and life came about by chance…

Ignorant Ape is right though…Drake’s Equation is just a tool to work out the probable occurrence of life existing. It doesn’t address the reasons for those occurrences.



Originally posted by cooperton
As shown above, The drake equation does address the mechanism.


I think you’re conflating life happening by “chance” (creation itself) with the “chances” of life existing in the Universe using the Drake Equation.

The Drake Equation addresses those mechanisms because it tries to weigh up the chances of those exact same conditions/mechanisms for life existing elsewhere…based on what we currently know about life here on Earth etc…

But the important point here is that Drake Equation does not state how those mechanism and/or conditions themselves came about or that they come about by chance!!!…Which is an important distinction to make and recognise.



Originally posted by cooperton
The probability of these occurrences is astronomically higher if there is a guiding intelligent force behind it. Do you understand that?


It’s already “high” as things currently stand…bearing in mind that we can currently observe 100 Billion Galaxies in our Universe alone.

How would you quantify “astronomically higher” in your above statement….Or more to the point how could the Drake Equation possibly factor in an intelligent force into it’s equations. Factoring that possibility into the Drake Equation would be practically impossible, as know one knows the exact specific details as to how the Universe began…

All the Drake Equation has to do is compare what we currently know about life here on Earth…look out into the Universe and combining Maths, Logic and probability work out the chances of other life existing.

- JC



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft

Ignorant Ape is right though…Drake’s Equation is just a tool to work out the probable occurrence of life existing. It doesn’t address the reasons for those occurrences.


Yes but the probable occurrence is drastically different depending on whether or not there is an intelligent force involved. When accounting for probabilities it is very relevant whether or not there was an architect in the design process.

The probability of a ford truck coming to be is drastically higher in a ford factory than by random chance. The drake equation assumes the earth exists by random chance... which is the extremely less likely circumstance given the abundance of intelligence in biology and the physical laws that perpetuate it.



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton



Originally posted by cooperton
The drake equation assumes the earth exists by random chance...


The Drake Equation does not assume the Earth exists by random chance…It’s just a mathematical formulae…and is completely neutral on those aspects…

There isn’t a single person alive that can state the Universe and Earth and everything in it came about by chance…No one has that knowledge available to them…so why would an Equation make such a claim…? The point is…It doesn’t!!!

The OP used to think the same as you, but has since realised that that was a mistake.

It’s just an Equation for working out the chances of life out there based off what we currently know about life here on Earth and in our Galaxy…It does not state/imply that other life out there (or on Earth) happened by chance.

Like I said before you’re conflating life happening by “chance” (Which the Drake Equation does not promote one way or the other) with the Drake Equation trying to discover the “chances” of life existing out there.



Originally posted by cooperton
Yes but the probable occurrence is drastically different depending on whether or not there is an intelligent force involved. When accounting for probabilities it is very relevant whether or not there was an architect in the design process.


But the Drake Equation only deals with the “probabilities” in relation to what we already know and can measure.

Science can only deal with what it can see and measure, which is why God is kept out of the equation. Otherwise all scientific theories not factoring in a creator would all be fallacies…which would just be ridiculous when you think about it…

That’s why I asked you those questions in my First reply…

Here they are again below…



Originally posted by cooperton
The probability of these occurrences is astronomically higher if there is a guiding intelligent force behind it.


It’s already “high” as things currently stand…bearing in mind that we can currently observe 100 Billion Galaxies in our Universe alone.

How would you quantify “astronomically higher” in your above statement…?…I mean life is already here…so what do you mean by astronomically higher…higher in what sense and how would we even measure it…?

Or more to the point…

How could the Drake Equation possibly factor in an intelligent force into its equation…?

- JC



edit on 15-1-2020 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2020 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft
It’s just an Equation for working out the chances of life out there based off what we currently know about life here on Earth and in our Galaxy…It does not state/imply that other life out there (or on Earth) happened by chance.


But that's exactly what it is determining - life coming to be given a certain set of expectable conditions necessary to harbor life. It is assuming that suns and planets forming is a probability game. Yet no star or planetary orbit has strayed its course since the beginning of known history. The cosmos are an implemented clockwork system.


How could the Drake Equation possibly factor in an intelligent force into its equation…?


It can't. That's why the equation is irrelevant in light of the immense purposeful mathematical laws implemented to perpetuate life.

Before getting too deep in to semantics, all I am saying is that life is much more likely to have come from intelligence rather than the chance conjecture asserted in the Drake Equation.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

So astronomy isn’t science. Gotcha.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Grenade

he did not actually say that - but hey :

geocentricism - what does it actually claim - and why ??

its not a trick question

can you posit a geocentric model that explains the moon , venus sun mars and the naked eye stars ?

thats ATS member barcs point - there never was any science to geocentricism



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

FFS - lets cut the bollox " inteligent design " as used in this thread is just the cultist newspeak to shaft special creationism into education

you post a graphic of the dake equation - please explain where it does what you claim - vis " intelligent design "

as stated by myself and others - please explain why you would set any paramate to zero - you never answer this [ nor do other cultists ]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join