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: 82
16
<< 79  80  81    83 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2020 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

The Drake Equation doesn’t discuss, mention or rely upon any particular cause or origin of life. Only the likelihood, based on the number of known galaxies and the estimated number of solar systems within said galaxies. It’s a probabilistic, not a deterministic equation in that regard.


Which is exactly my point. It disregards the deterministic nature all around us that is exemplified by the precise physical laws that have endured since the beginning of known history. The Drake equation on the other hand assumes it was a probabilistic origin of life.

Due to the abundance of evidence that the universe is deterministic, the equation is irrelevant. You guys disagree because it doesn't fit your atheist narrative, which is fine... That is the impasse we have reached.
edit on 9-2-2020 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 9 2020 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

The Drake Equation doesn’t discuss, mention or rely upon any particular cause or origin of life. Only the likelihood, based on the number of known galaxies and the estimated number of solar systems within said galaxies. It’s a probabilistic, not a deterministic equation in that regard.


Which is exactly my point. It disregards the deterministic nature all around us that is exemplified by the precise physical laws that have endured since the beginning of known history. The Drake equation on the other hand assumes it was a probabilistic origin of life.

Due to the abundance of evidence that the universe is deterministic, the equation is irrelevant. You guys disagree because it doesn't fit your atheist narrative, which is fine... That is the impasse we have reached.


We disagree because your abundance of evidence is speculation, a moebius strip of conjecture and hypothesis. The Drake equation is probablistic in accordance with factors that have been tested and confirmed to contribute to life as we know it on planet Earth. Variables which can't be tested are not particularly helpful to the exercise. But you may have a point about the equation being irrelevant.



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

We disagree because your abundance of evidence is speculation, a moebius strip of conjecture and hypothesis.


My main point is that the intelligible laws of physics that keep everything in proper equilibrium insist that this is a designed world. The intricacies of molecular biology are like micromachines working together to accumulate an entire functioning organism. The more I learn about various fields of science, the more blatantly deterministic all of it becomes.


The Drake equation is probablistic in accordance with factors that have been tested and confirmed to contribute to life as we know it on planet Earth. Variables which can't be tested are not particularly helpful to the exercise. But you may have a point about the equation being irrelevant.


I hope we all can figure out the truth of our existence. My biggest issue with probabilistic theories is that they insist that our existence is an accident. If that is true, then our opinions don't really matter because all turns back to naught. But if it's wrong, and you believe it, then it can mislead you from the depths of a deterministic world that was set forth for you to figure out.



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: turbonium1

I'll believe it when I see a rocket fly up towards 'orbit', from Earth, until it is a mere speck in the sky....


The direction can't be just "up", or they would never get into orbit. It would need to fly up a little, but more parallel to the Earth's surface, since an orbit is parallel to the surface.

A rocket that just goes up would fall back to Earth.



Yes, I'm well aware of those excuses.

Show me a rocket that eventually becomes a mere speck in the sky, as it flies towards 'orbit'.

No 'up' excuse for you here.




Again, because the direction to orbit is not "straight up", that won't happen when a camera stationed at the launch site follows a rocket launch.

The direction to orbit would be over the horizon, so a rocket would disappear over the horizon first before it would otherwise disappear from the camera's view (even if it were a telescopic camera).



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

We disagree because your abundance of evidence is speculation, a moebius strip of conjecture and hypothesis.


My main point is that the intelligible laws of physics that keep everything in proper equilibrium insist that this is a designed world. The intricacies of molecular biology are like micromachines working together to accumulate an entire functioning organism. The more I learn about various fields of science, the more blatantly deterministic all of it becomes.


The Drake equation is probablistic in accordance with factors that have been tested and confirmed to contribute to life as we know it on planet Earth. Variables which can't be tested are not particularly helpful to the exercise. But you may have a point about the equation being irrelevant.


I hope we all can figure out the truth of our existence. My biggest issue with probabilistic theories is that they insist that our existence is an accident. If that is true, then our opinions don't really matter because all turns back to naught. But if it's wrong, and you believe it, then it can mislead you from the depths of a deterministic world that was set forth for you to figure out.


Confirmation bias. Carry on.



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

...A great and awesome intelligible force that intended for life to exist.

...


...
How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces.
...

Note that Cooperton is doing the same thing by attributing intelligence and the will and foresight to use it for a specific purpose (a godlike power) to a "force" (and the mindless universe if you read the rest of his commentary*, as if the universe has the attributes of a mind, or functions as a mind does, can do things like "intend" for life to exist and then presumably act on that intention by means of performing the act of creation/engineering, another godlike power in the context of the subject discussed above). So in that sense his way of reasoning is not that different from fans of evolutionary philosophies and storylines who argue things like 'the universe created itself', 'life found a way' (i.e. 'nature did it'; which is not much different from saying 'the universe did it' or some yet undiscovered natural force did it, regarding the emergence of the universe, the designs observed in the universe and the life in it).

Source was: Which Approach Is More Reasonable? (Awake!—2011)

*: or am I confused with neoholographic who argues like that? It's a bit like what Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are doing as I think I discussed before in this thread:

...
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?
...
References Listed by Chapter
...
23. Evolution From Space, pp. 30, 31.

24. Ibid., p. 130.

25. The Selfish Gene, p. 14.

26. Evolution From Space, p. 31.

Source: Chapter 4: Could Life Originate by Chance? (Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?)
edit on 11-2-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Don't be such a pharisee. The intelligent Force is the Unbegotten God YHWH Alpha-Omega Creator who came manifest as Jesus the Christ. Are you with me or against me?



posted on Feb, 12 2020 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I may have gotten the wrong impression and your commentary or views confused with neoholographic's who seems to think of the universe or nature (or some force of nature, or something behind nature) as being intelligent, not necessarily a personal Creator.

So I guess in this case maybe only your choice of words ("intelligible force") may have confused me as to what you were referring to. Generally, when people read the word "force" they automatically think of an impersonal force (like the force of gravity, or the supposed yet undiscovered natural force that can cause the machinery and technology of life to emerge that is often appealed to by fans of evolutionary philosophies when they are pushed to propose an alternate explanation for the origin of life than creation; something that came up in another thread I was recently commenting in, Could the belief in god considered a mental illness ?. That's why I was thinking about it when I noticed your usage of the word "force" as well, cause I just quoted that phrase about 'attributing godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces' there as well).

I'd like to think I'm neither with you nor against you. If I misunderstood what you (or neoholographic) were referring to I guess you can just change "Cooperton is" in my comment to "some are", and "his way of reasoning" to "their way of reasoning", making it a bit more of a general remark regarding what Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are doing (and those who use phrases as 'we are just the universe trying to understand itself'; something you'll run into on the philosophy forum more often and amongst new age philosophers, Mother Nature-worshippers, pantheists and Sci-Fi writers).
edit on 12-2-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2020 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: whereislogic

Don't be such a pharisee. The intelligent Force is the Unbegotten God YHWH Alpha-Omega Creator who came manifest as Jesus the Christ. Are you with me or against me?


Thanks for your honesty for once.



posted on Feb, 13 2020 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Because I don’t need to justify my opinions to you. As I’ve explained many many times I’m tired of arguing with you.

Ptolemy was a scientist. End of.

Science didn’t begin in the 17th century.

I’ve defined science, astronomy is a science, Ptolemy was a scientist.

That’s my position, argue away with yourself all you want, I really can’t simplify it anymore or waste my time with you.

All the LOL, LMAO, PWNED nonsense you keep throwing around tells me exactly the type I’m dealing with. What a waste of time. Go back to shooting folk on your games and leave the discussions to those who don’t see it as a competition.

What did Copernicus do differently? What experiments did he use that Ptolemy didn’t?







edit on 13/2/20 by Grenade because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2020 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Thanks for your honesty for once.


Where have I lied ever? Show specific examples.



posted on Feb, 13 2020 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Thanks for your honesty for once.


Where have I lied ever? Show specific examples.


This is the first time I've seen you specifically declare that the Christian god is the only logical piece that could possibly complete the equation. Basically you resent the Drake equation because it doesn't favor Judaism as a reasonable assumption.
edit on 13-2-2020 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2020 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

This is the first time I've seen you specifically declare that the Christian god is the only logical piece that could possibly complete the equation. Basically you resent the Drake equation because it doesn't favor Judaism as a reasonable assumption.


All of the points I made against the Drake equation do not require a Christian belief system. I knew you and the others would obviously not have accepted "Jesus is a extra-dimensional Being, the timeless Alpha-Omega Creator of all", so I played in your playing field... Using nothing but empirical science. The Drake Equation simply does not fit because this world we live in is certainly ordered, precise, and mathematical. These attributes of precision and order can not come from a unintelligent origin.

instead it's you that glorifies the Drake equation because it fits your religion of random mutated monkey origins... Despite none of it matching any empirical data whatsoever.
edit on 13-2-2020 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2020 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

This is the first time I've seen you specifically declare that the Christian god is the only logical piece that could possibly complete the equation. Basically you resent the Drake equation because it doesn't favor Judaism as a reasonable assumption.


All of the points I made against the Drake equation do not require a Christian belief system. I knew you and the others would obviously not have accepted "Jesus is a extra-dimensional Being, the timeless Alpha-Omega Creator of all", so I played in your playing field... Using nothing but empirical science. The Drake Equation simply does not fit because this world we live in is certainly ordered, precise, and mathematical. These attributes of precision and order can not come from a unintelligent origin.

instead it's you that glorifies the Drake equation because it fits your religion of random mutated monkey origins... Despite none of it matching any empirical data whatsoever.


And you have empirical data proving that this superpowered alien of extra dimensional and atemporal properties is real?



posted on Feb, 13 2020 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

And you have empirical data proving that this superpowered alien of extra dimensional and atemporal properties is real?


The meticulous mathematically consistent laws indicate that an intelligence greater than us created our system. Your wish that it came to be by unintelligent random forces is antithetical to the observations we have of physical systems.

Why are you so hell-bent on the idea that we came from unintelligent chaos? It's infinitesimally the least likely scenario given our current understanding of the ordered universe.



posted on Feb, 13 2020 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

And you have empirical data proving that this superpowered alien of extra dimensional and atemporal properties is real?


The meticulous mathematically consistent laws indicate that an intelligence greater than us created our system. Your wish that it came to be by unintelligent random forces is antithetical to the observations we have of physical systems.

Why are you so hell-bent on the idea that we came from unintelligent chaos? It's infinitesimally the least likely scenario given our current understanding of the ordered universe.


But we can't actually find this person? We just assume they are around because the universe is too perfect? I asked for empirical evidence, where is your proof?



posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 03:14 AM
link   
It's amazing after billions of years you get a planet with life and sentient beings. Life has it's flaws, but we are the best we can be. It's amazing how everything came together in such a way for our world to flourish. We know that life can exist out of smashing rocks, elements, chemicals together. However, the universe cannot directly create a rocket engine or a grand piano, it needs humans to do that. It's like the universe wants to live through us. It's only limited by our imagination. That's how we fit in I suppose.In a way we are creators. Demigods among the stars.



posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: sean
It's amazing after billions of years you get a planet with life and sentient beings. Life has it's flaws, but we are the best we can be. It's amazing how everything came together in such a way for our world to flourish. We know that life can exist out of smashing rocks, elements, chemicals together. However, the universe cannot directly create a rocket engine or a grand piano, it needs humans to do that. It's like the universe wants to live through us. It's only limited by our imagination. That's how we fit in I suppose.In a way we are creators. Demigods among the stars.


The universe does not need rockets or pianos. For some reason, humans cant resist inventing such toys, and for what purpose?



posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: turbonium1

I'll believe it when I see a rocket fly up towards 'orbit', from Earth, until it is a mere speck in the sky....


The direction can't be just "up", or they would never get into orbit. It would need to fly up a little, but more parallel to the Earth's surface, since an orbit is parallel to the surface.

A rocket that just goes up would fall back to Earth.



Yes, I'm well aware of those excuses.

Show me a rocket that eventually becomes a mere speck in the sky, as it flies towards 'orbit'.

No 'up' excuse for you here.




Again, because the direction to orbit is not "straight up", that won't happen when a camera stationed at the launch site follows a rocket launch.

The direction to orbit would be over the horizon, so a rocket would disappear over the horizon first before it would otherwise disappear from the camera's view (even if it were a telescopic camera).


So you're saying we cannot film it along the way, then??

Nice try.



posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Grenade

Okay so you rescind your argument that geocentrism was a scientific theory, then, right? That's the ONLY thing was arguing against. I respect your opinions, but the scientific theory thing was an assertion that you argued rigorously for, it didn't seem like it was just an opinion. But hey, maybe we can all learn something and find some common ground here.
edit on 2 14 20 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 79  80  81    83 >>

log in

join