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: 76
16
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Agreed.


Pwning me. Good grief, just realised he’s nothing but a spoiled wee boy.




posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

sigh - oh so thats why none of you can answer basic questions

i ask again - of both of you

why set any drake equation paramater to zero ?

its the kill question for the thread

yet you wont even touch it

but accuse ATS member barcs and i of lacking emperical science

ROFLMAO

your " ally " ATS member grenade is a moon hoax beliver - yet cannot answer basic questions - he is now " no longer interesed " in a topic he brought to the thread

who has no emperical science ?



posted on Jan, 28 2020 @ 09:40 PM
link   
and just to recap - the rebutal to the members " core claim " of

via ATS member cooperton :


I am pointing out a fundamental flaw in his assumption that there was no intelligent designer involved in the process


hmm - thats utter bollox

lets explore why :

the drake equation states :



The Drake equation is:



where:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);
and

R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space



thats it - it actually makes no distiction as to HOW or WHY stars form or stars accumulate planets or planets capable of supporting life occur or life occurs on said planet etc etc etc

it only posits that they can .

remember - its a thought experiment - not a quantative tool to determine EXACTLY how many civilisations exist

thats why :

why would you set a parameter to zero ? - is the key to the entire thing

ATS member cooperton - never explains his quote claim - just repeats it

but look at the actual equation - as i quote it - there is no reference to mechanism - just occurs or does not occur

thats why this thread is a farce

EDIT - stupid code - picture replace
edit on 28-1-2020 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2020 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

I’ve answered your questions, what would you like to know?

Not that I should considering the childish behaviour of you both.

All I’ve done this whole thread is defend the right for folk to express their opinions.

After all, opinions are like assholes and assholes like opinions.

Your science proves nothing.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Grenade


I’ve answered your questions,


no you have not - not even close

but hey - hear is your big chance :

explain why you woul set any parrameter in the drake equation to zero


All I’ve done this whole thread is defend the right for folk to express their opinions.


utter bollox

your moon hoax idiocy is the best example - untill you ran way

but wait - you are still hear



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

There's no reason to give intelligent design its own individual variable in the Drake equation because it hasn't proven to be a pivotal or even noticable factor in the search for life among the stars. The real fallacy is that the Drake equation is being used to misrepresent intelligent design as a viable theory without any indication that other life exists outside of our planet.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape

explain why you woul set any parrameter in the drake equation to zero



And **Poof**, we humans on Earth blink out of existence.




edit on 2020/1/29 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

its hard to understand cultist babbling - but they SEEM to believe that " inteigent design " SHOULD affect several parameters - not have its own

but thats just my take on it

best to ask the question directly - the " answer " or the evasiveness will be equally amusing



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: TzarChasm

its hard to understand cultist babbling - but they SEEM to believe that " inteigent design " SHOULD affect several parameters - not have its own

but thats just my take on it

best to ask the question directly - the " answer " or the evasiveness will be equally amusing


An untestable variable is by definition a wild card that can't be measured, resulting in an equation that can't be solved except by presuming what effect that one value will have on the rest of the numbers. Such factors are the bane of the scientific method because they can't be falsified without relying on imagination which is the opposite of experimentation and observation.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Sure, soon as I get home from work I’ll explain myself once again because you asked so politely. A little bit of civility would go a long way in this thread, pretty damning the number of people who have joined and include insults in their first post or correspondence with other posters. Quite frustrating really.

I have no issues with the Drake equation. My initial intention was to mediate the argument and interject a little common sense. That was and is just too much for the atheists, they already know it all you see because well.... science. Even tho my understanding of science enforces my notion of creation it seems to other people it’s some kind of pseudo theology.

Again, you don’t need to be an asshole in every conversation, it is possible to have a civil discussion without resorting to playground tactics.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Actually I’m dubious about Apollo 11. Its my belief that any moon missions would have been orchestrated by the military long before any public space program.

I’m not the only one who doubts the Apollo 11 story but again I’ve really not looked into it for a very long time.

From what I remember on the topic I was particularly swayed by the photographic evidence, such as the crosshairs appearing behind objects, duplicate landscapes seemingly miles apart with exact same topography. The lack of dust dispersal from the engine thrust on landing. The various and many clearly manipulated photos NASA have released over the years. The video of the astronauts faking the Earth through window and many many other inconsistencies such as fake moon rocks.

Do I have an alternative to the official narrative, no. Am I convinced 100% either way, no. Do I really care, no. It was more than 50 years ago.

The Apollo missions fulfilled their goals most of which were political if were honest.

Space travel, the only technology I can think of in modern history which has degraded over time. 50 years since the moon landing yet nothing manned has left low Earth orbit since the 70’s.

I also don’t believe the official story of 9/11 nor the JFK assassination. Do you also 100% believe the official narrative on both those subjects? If so I’m wasting my time.





edit on 29/1/20 by Grenade because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

I would set the parameters to 0, why would I?

I guess you could set them to 1, being that we are the only known planet to harbour life at this moment.

Once we discover life elsewhere then we could increase the parameters.

Until we had a data set with confirmed life in several different locations it would be difficult to punch any numbers into the equation and expect reliable or accurate output.

As you said which I have previously stated it is a thought experiment, nothing more. It’s amazing that we agree about this point yet still you find a way to attack me.

Again, I agree with your stance on the Drake equation. I do however find cooperton and cars for kids to be friendly and polite in their conversations with me even if our opinions are opposed. The atheist side, not so much.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Conveying any sort of mature conversation is impossible with them. Barcs is always barking, caps lock on very often, and berating people in the worst ways he can imagine. Ignorant ape is very similar.


To you, "berating people in the worst ways I can imagine" is not agreeing with your lies and calling out your false claims and laughing about science denial instead of blindly agreeing with you. You constantly make it personal on here.


Neither of them know enough about empirical science to hold an actual discussion, so they resort to that type of behavior.


You must be looking in the mirror. You have proved yourself to be scientifically illiterate hundreds of times, so you just project that back at us as if it holds any weight whatsoever.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade
All I’ve done this whole thread is defend the right for folk to express their opinions.


Neither of us are saying that you don't have the right to express an opinion or trying to censor you. We are asking you to explain yourself and back up claims you made. Of course you have the right to express your opinion, just like I have the right to reject, question or scrutinize it. Disagreeing and conversing with you about that isn't censorship or telling you not to express your opinions. It's often to correct common misconceptions, like the idea of geocentrism being a scientific theory. It wasn't to be a jerk to you, it was because it misrepresented the scientific method.


edit on 1 29 20 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I don’t think anyone is intentionally lying to you.

Just people have different perspectives which you seem unwilling to accept. Sure, they could be mis-informed, science could back you up but at the end of the day it’s all just opinion and nothing in 100% certain.

I’m not advocating pandering to fantasy but at the same time denying God while behaving as if your opinions came straight from their mouth is bordering on mental illness.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

And yet my opinions haven’t attracted constructive debate. Instead they have been answered with insult and ridicule. I don’t think I’ve been too outrageous or illogical throughout.

I also think a lot of our debate is based on opinion and can’t be verified so maybe we should learn to be more accepting and tolerant to the views of others?



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Actually my claim was that science is progressive and geo-centrism at the time was the best model we were able to produce. The scientific method evolved and was refined however a predictive model based on Astronomy and Math was scientific for lack of a better word. Sure Ptolemy was completely wrong, his method and results were flawed but I simply don’t know how else to describe his work other than that of an early scientist. It doesn’t meet today’s scientific standard but how could it? You can only piss with the cock god gave you.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade
Just people have different perspectives which you seem unwilling to accept. Sure, they could be mis-informed, science could back you up but at the end of the day it’s all just opinion and nothing in 100% certain.


Science is certainly not just opinion, it's a method of research and analysis. There is a big difference between claims, math theories, probability theories, scientific theories and opinions. It seems like they are all being lumped together under the same umbrella here, and that's the main thing I'm arguing against. The drake equation isn't a scientific theory or a claim, it's an estimation.


I’m not advocating pandering to fantasy but at the same time denying God while behaving as if your opinions came straight from their mouth is bordering on mental illness.


Being skeptical about something which has never been demonstrated or backed by evidence is not mental illness, in fact it's the exact opposite. Skepticism of unfalsifiable claims is a reasonable logical position. I refer to the research, not people's opinions. You'll often notice on here that it is most often the theists who quote mine opinions of scientists, not atheists.


And yet my opinions haven’t attracted constructive debate. Instead they have been answered with insult and ridicule. I don’t think I’ve been too outrageous or illogical throughout.


That's simply not true. I provided actual links and data to back up what I said. I only "ridiculed" when you ignored it all and got outraged over it. After I demonstrated to you that science was a method your response was something like "science is a method blah blah blah" and deflected to red herrings like "astronomy is science" or "Ptolemy is a scientist" to try to claim geocentrism was a scientific theory. I don't just ridicule, I very often provide data and back up what I say FIRST, but it is often disregarded, denied or purposely ignored, and that is when the ridicule kicks in. Or when it's Coop, because he's earned it over the year and has been repeating the same lies for a very long time.




edit on 1 29 20 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

There’s no such thing as standardised scientific method. It changes over time, dependant on the subject matter and also on the scientist. Which renders your ridicule unjustified.

If not a Scientist how would you categorise Ptolemy?

The rest I can agree with.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: TzarChasm

Actually my claim was that science is progressive and geo-centrism at the time was the best model we were able to produce. The scientific method evolved and was refined however a predictive model based on Astronomy and Math was scientific for lack of a better word. Sure Ptolemy was completely wrong, his method and results were flawed but I simply don’t know how else to describe his work other than that of an early scientist. It doesn’t meet today’s scientific standard but how could it? You can only piss with the cock god gave you.


I would describe his work as that of a bad astronomer who should have gone to chemistry school instead.




top topics



 
16
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join