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: 71
16
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
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


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


The probability of intelligent biologically ordered life coming to existence is "extremely unprobable", as defined by Drake's own equation.

A ford truck is much more likely to be made in a ford factory that has blueprints and intention to create it, rather than random unintelligent chance which could never create a ford truck. Let alone a garage door opener.

Human beings are even more complex than trucks - self-aware, self-repairing, reproducible, rational, emotional, and can endure for over 100 years. The creation of biology requires intelligent forces, For the same reason a ford truck will never come to be without intelligent input




posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Wrong! Right now in this infinite universe somewhere monkeys on typewriters are randomly typing the works of Shakespeare.

I’m sure factories and cars spring up all throughout the universe.





posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

That’s exactly what syntaxis does.

It uses math and observation of celestial motion to make accurate predictions.

Like any science Ptolemy can only use the tools and knowledge available at the time.

It’s certainly not some fable or work of fiction.

Have any of you actually read his work and looked at the math and method?






edit on 16/1/20 by Grenade because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 02:34 PM
link   

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


You are treating drake equation as some be all end all when it's just a probability theory. It's not a scientific theory, it's not claimed to be proof of anything or to address mechanisms of how things got that way. This is mental illness, there is no other explanation, especially after it's been explained to you a dozen times, but that's your position with everything. After getting debunked, just ignore it and repeat your original claim.
edit on 1 16 20 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Barcs
So astronomy isn’t science. Gotcha.


Nice straw man.


Wrong! Right now in this infinite universe somewhere monkeys on typewriters are randomly typing the works of Shakespeare.

I’m sure factories and cars spring up all throughout the universe.


Another straw man. Well done sir!


Have any of you actually read his work and looked at the math and method?


Have you??? You were unable to name a single test or application of the scientific method in geocentrism. I merely asked for 1. Sounds like you don't know what you are talking about.

edit on 1 16 20 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
You are treating drake equation as some be all end all when it's just a probability theory. It's not a scientific theory, it's not claimed to be proof of anything or to address mechanisms of how things got that way. This is mental illness, there is no other explanation, especially after it's been explained to you a dozen times, but that's your position with everything. After getting debunked, just ignore it and repeat your original claim.


Is intelligence more likely to come from intelligence or non-intelligence?

Really simple.
edit on 16-1-2020 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton
Intelligence by define is a human concept....we also interprets other animal's ability to survive in the universe as instinctive or nature. in other words, selective perception....there are many things in nature that even to us makes no sense or purpose so to answer your question...yes intelligence by our observation can originate from non intelligence. As displayed by other animals ability to survive without the level of so called "intelligence" we have. A baby without being taught will only behave like a wild animal lacking your perceived intelligence.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: toktaylor
As displayed by other animals ability to survive without the level of so called "intelligence" we have.


Animals have their own sort of intelligence. Take for example their fear instincts. How could these have evolved? How could a Zebra or other animal under the pressure of predation be able to survive without the inclination to run from predators? They would be wiped out very quick. How would random mutations of genetic code leading to subtle protein changes be able to make the immense alterations to their neurology to allow them to perceive carnivores as a threat? We have never observed such a possibility in the lab. The possibility for such neural circuits to emerge by random chance are absolutely unfounded in science.



A baby without being taught will only behave like a wild animal lacking your perceived intelligence.


We are born with a lot programmed into our nervous system. Even walking is not a learned trait - it is actually programmed into our spinal cord, it is just a matter of the infant being able to grow strong enough to support its weight. These are known as phyletic memories. attributes that come standard with our human body.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton
Again I say we tend to use selective perception to strengthen points. These attributes are not unique to human so what makes us Intelligent and other animals not: secondly ,to show that their is no design for every perfectly born animals there is the corresponding flawed one which clearly shows chaos rather than the order you would tend to perpetuate.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: cooperton
Again I say we tend to use selective perception to strengthen points. These attributes are not unique to human so what makes us Intelligent and other animals not: secondly ,to show that their is no design for every perfectly born animals there is the corresponding flawed one which clearly shows chaos rather than the order you would tend to perpetuate.



Chaos results when ordered is defied. The age-old term "sin" means exactly that - to miss the point of the natural order. As we come closer to the archetypal human behavior, health flourishes. When we defy it, our bodies becomes diseased.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton
The primary point to note when trying to prove intelligent design is to accept that there is no order in the universe. That chaos exists oftentimes much more than order. Once we observe the universe for what it truly is then there is no need to put a designer in the mix because reality negates that.
What exist is our perceptions, which is always biased to make patterns to make sense of our existence. If we examine the world around us and even our own experiences we can concur that we are simple just a result of a roll of a dice. There is no reason to suspect or input another source.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: cooperton
The primary point to note when trying to prove intelligent design is to accept that there is no order in the universe.


Whaaaat? planetary orbits have not strayed from their precise path in known history. Look up at the night's sky, it rotates so predictably that people were able to make calendars and predict the dates for certain astronomical phenomenon. All these act according to precise physical laws that ensure that they stay within these precise bounds. It is an ordered system that goes like clockwork.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton
again selective perception...while ignoring the numerous exploding planets and stars..chaos such as asteroids, comets, meteors, black holes and super bubbles. Our planet is just one accident from extinction due to supernova explosions or Gamma ray bursts. Try to see everything and not what you chose to see.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton



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.




Originally posted by cooperton
But that's exactly what it is determining - life coming to be given a certain set of expectable conditions necessary to harbor life.


But it does not state anywhere that those conditions started by chance. It’s only looking for similar conditions so as to apply the maths equations and work out the probability…



Originally posted by cooperton
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.


It’s a probability game only in terms of looking for similar planets to our own…but it’s not stating those planets and the whole mechanism of the Universe itself happens or works by chance!



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




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


Exactly...“it can’t”…

But think about what your saying. You’re essentially stating that because science can’t factor in a Creator into it’s Equations…that it shouldn’t use maths to try to work out the probability of other life existing out there…which is just ridiculous…especially considering that the Drake Equation makes no claim that the Universe/life started by chance…



Originally posted by cooperton
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.


I agree. I believe that life is more likely to have come from intelligence myself…but the Drake Equation does not make any assertions in either direction…

- JC



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Nothin straw man about it.


I called Ptolemy a scientist and I stand by that characterisation. It’s you that’s had to invoke additional caveats that fit the argument. Now we’re onto defining scientific methods and logic blah blah blah. All of which are open to interpretation.

I can assure you that in 1000 years arrogant fools like yourself will be dismissive of our current science while those who are truly objective will see the benefits of their labor.

You really need to get out of the habit of contradicting yourself.

I never said I could provide you evidence of modern scientific method in Ptolemys work, how could I if it’s still evolving and open to interpretation even now?

Show me an example from Newton’s Principia and I’ll show you something comparative from syntaxis..



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
You are treating drake equation as some be all end all when it's just a probability theory. It's not a scientific theory, it's not claimed to be proof of anything or to address mechanisms of how things got that way. This is mental illness, there is no other explanation, especially after it's been explained to you a dozen times, but that's your position with everything. After getting debunked, just ignore it and repeat your original claim.


Is intelligence more likely to come from intelligence or non-intelligence?

Really simple.


No. Really STUPID.

Intelligent Design is about a higher power designing life, not humans, so referencing humans designing thing intelligently does not indicate that a high power is responsible for life arising in the first place. It's a fallacious comparison. Human intelligence evolved over time and that's been clearly demonstrated. You have zero evidence of the intelligent design of life/dna/universe.




edit on 1 17 20 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

There’s 0 evidence for the existence of aliens as well yet I notice a lot of atheists believe in them.

Maybe let people believe what they want and get off the high horse?

There’s more to the universe and it’s mysteries than your science can ever hope to understand.



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: toktaylor
.chaos such as asteroids, comets, meteors,


Meteor showers and comets have such predictable patterns that astronomers know when and where, for example, Halley's comet will come again.


black holes


Also behave according to precise mathematical laws. Not very random at all.



Our planet is just one accident from extinction due to supernova explosions or Gamma ray bursts.


Hmm, well I'll be enjoying the goldi-locks zone that our ancestors have also been enjoying for the past known history. The equilibrium and precision of our solar system far surpasses even the best Rolex watch.


originally posted by: Barcs


No. Really STUPID.

Intelligent Design is about a higher power designing life, not humans, so referencing humans designing thing intelligently does not indicate that a high power is responsible for life arising in the first place. Intelligence evolved over time and that's been clearly demonstrated. You have zero evidence of the intelligent design of life/dna/universe. That's ZERO spelled with a 0 and you have the gall to blindly reject peer reviewed science, yet champion bull# like this which is completely irrelevant to the drake equation.



Nice round-about. Can you answer the question now?

Which is more likely to create intelligence: something intelligent or unintelligent?
edit on 17-1-2020 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

The question you should be asking is:

Which is more likely?

1. A super complex intelligent conscious being that just happens to exist, with no cause, from nothing, it's just there by default (wow so lucky)

2. The universe came from something else not as complex.

I go with #2.

The question isn't whether intelligent beings can design intelligent systems, the question is whether an intelligent being can just exist by default from nothing and NOT come from intelligence, which breaks your rule and thus renders your argument fallacious due to special pleading.


edit on 1 17 20 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2020 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Barcs

There’s 0 evidence for the existence of aliens as well yet I notice a lot of atheists believe in them.


Irrelevant red herring.


Maybe let people believe what they want and get off the high horse?


You guys are making false claims. This isn't about letting people believe what they want. You are free to think whatever you want, but when you make invalid claims (ie geocentrism was a scientific theory), I will call it out.


originally posted by: Grenade
I called Ptolemy a scientist and I stand by that characterisation. It’s you that’s had to invoke additional caveats that fit the argument. Now we’re onto defining scientific methods and logic blah blah blah. All of which are open to interpretation.


You still don't get it Just because people call him a scientist doesn't make geocentrism a scientific theory. You made a specific claim. Just admit you were wrong and move on. What's the big deal? Every argument you make is a red herring. If you can't post an empirical test, you aren't referencing a scientific theory.


You really need to get out of the habit of contradicting yourself.


Where did I contradict myself? You really need to get out of the habit of defending arguments with fallacies.


I never said I could provide you evidence of modern scientific method in Ptolemys work, how could I if it’s still evolving and open to interpretation even now?


Good, so you admit it's not a scientific theory, then.


Show me an example from Newton’s Principia and I’ll show you something comparative from syntaxis..


Another red herring deflection. Newton has nothing to do with geocentrism. Try again. Newton came up with the LAW of gravity, which was NOT a scientific theory. This is basic stuff, dude.


edit on 1 17 20 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join