The Drake Equation Fallacy

originally posted by: Grenade

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: Grenade

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: carsforkids

You believe and worship a God that is psychopathic! How many people have died in the name of your psychopathic God again?

The reason I hate your psychopathic God is because I have empathy. Why would I worship a God that commands the death of innocent people?

a reply to: Jay-morris

Hey don't blame for what psychology says there the ones with the
evidence. lol Maybe you should see one and talk to them about it.
I'm sure they can make you comfortable. lol

.

You have clearly showed in this thread that you think you know how everyone thinks, and you have also clumped people together as if you know them.

But, what you really show is your lack of knowledge when it comes to religion, esp your religion. Which mskes me think you were brainwashed into that religion, even though you will never admit that, and will carry on lying satyinging you were a kid who randomly had a pull towards Christianity.

But you have lied all through this thread, so nothing suprise me!

Considering your blind belief in theoretical science, a subject in which you clearly have limited understanding, i would suggest this post is somewhat hypocritical.

So, because I say there is no evidence for the Christian God being real, then I have blind belief in theoretical science lololololol

Please show me the evidence for the Christian God? Do you have any?

That wasn't what i stated, you are confusing the argument as usual.

You don't understand the science so are taking the word of your science prophets as gospel.

Show me the evidence of Dark Matter, it's circumstantial at best.

You are also dismissing the beliefs of someone which i find rude and arrogant.

As if anyone actually knows the true nature of reality or how the universe was created.

Physics does a good job of describing the rules of motion but by no means perfect.

I'd love to see your equation explaining consciousness or the process of creating life from a chemical soup.

Stop being so bloody arrogant when you're clearly not very clever.

What the hell are you talking about! lol You responded to my post thst was even for you lol And you call me arrogant? lol

If can be bothered to read my posts, I have already said my opinions regarding conciousness!

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Barcs

Claims the flow of electrons through circuitry at specific bandwidths has nothing to do with physics and calls me a moron.

Claims to have a degree in computer science but doesn't recognise the acronym AGI nor is aware of the concept of a technological singularity. OK pal we believe you.

I didn't claim anything about electrons and bandwidths. AGI can mean many different things. I'm not the one who brought up computer science in a discussion on physics.

a reply to: Jay-morris

See stuff like this is half the problem.

If can be bothered to read my posts,

WTF is that? Do you even proof read ever? Or do you actually talk like that?

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Erno86

Oh now who's this person?

Either way...do you think that the Drake Equation might be a useful communication tool for establishing first contact with an extraterrestrial civilization?

What the hell are you doing going so far on topic?

Thank you for a good question they've been few and far between in
this thread.

As for a tool I myself am led to believe in terms of providing a positive
attitude of persistence in the scientific field of research (SETI). It
absolutely is a perfect tool. In this thread I was merely pointing to
the fallacy of chronology. Where as nobody knows a thing about the
time line the universe is on.

With out a Creator we absolutely do not know and likely never will.
But with a Creator? And if the Bible is his message, as i have no reason
to believe it isn't. Then we have always had the information with us
all along. Right there conveniently in the first three words of the
Bible.

THE MOST PRINTED AND POPULAR BOOK ON THE PLANET ( for my other readers)lol

One of my first attempts at contact with a purported ET bipedal, during the seventies --- located on the Western Shore of the Chesapeake Bay at Calvert Cliffs, Maryland --- was when I wrote the Drake Equation, with a black magic marker, on a piece of old teak wood ship decking; that I found on the shoreline and placed it up against a Miocene fossil boulder near the same location --- Of where there was unprovable evidence of said ET alien habitation.

That was not my last attempt at contact with an EBE...since I attempted numerous more.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Jay-morris

See stuff like this is half the problem.

If can be bothered to read my posts,

WTF is that? Do you even proof read ever? Or do you actually talk like that?

No, I am busy a lot of the time and write quick. Don't use this as a way of dodging my question. You have dodged question after question because you simply so not know what you are talking about! That is the problem here!

a reply to: Jay-morris

I'm not dodging # Einstein I'm just not answering you.! lol

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Jay-morris

I'm not dodging # Einstein I'm just not answering you.! lol

That's not answering lol. You dodged the question and posted about my gramma! How is that answering what I said in my post?

a reply to: Jay-morris

I don't believe in a Christian god no.

However evidence is objective, my kids believe in the tooth fairy. They put a tooth under their pillow and the next morning a coin appears on their pillow. Their parents enforce that belief. When Santa comes he leaves presents under the tree, drinks the glass of whisky they left and his reindeer eat the carrot. Does that mean santa claus is real because their perception provides evidence of his existence?

Perception and consciousness are our only real tools of evaluation. For thousands of years truth has been manipulated to change perceptions. For a 1000 years the majority of western culture has based it's society on enforced beliefs. Science makes a stronger argument however it is not truly objective.

There's more to understanding and knowledge than what you are told, inside all of us lies the true meaning and it is an individual experience that you can't truly share.

Do not let others tell you what to believe, that can't be described by looking outward, for that you have to search within.

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: ravenshadow13
a reply to: turbonium1

There are so many problems with this.

Just curious if you were home schooled, or went to religious school? If you have any knowledge of chemistry or physics, or do those sciences just fly in the face of God in your mind?????

If someone had real evidence for this firmament then I would certainly consider it. I’m a science. I’ll consider any and all evidence. But some quote on someone’s tombstone is not evidence. Neither are videos that could be altered or come from who knows where. Show me something from a reputable source. Show me, you know, exactly how our satellites got past this firmament. And our space rovers. I’d be really curious about how that works.

Good grief.

The fathers of medicine used to believe in the humors and all sorts of things that are not real and that no one believes anymore unless they literally live in a world deprived of logic and evidence.

Von Braun had no reason to lie, he was dead. It's not solid proof, but you certainly cannot dismiss the world's top authority on rocketry, like it means nothing. Nice try though.

You have never seen, in person, or on film, a single rocket, or satellite launch, fly beyond the blue skies above Earth, and you never will, either.

No film TAKEN FROM EARTH shows any rocket or satellite fly beyond our blue skies, too. Are you aware of that fact? You are now.

Why, knowing this, do you believe rockets and satellites have flown into 'orbit'? There is no valid evidence of it, to confirm it is true.

When you try telling me I have no knowledge of sciences, or so forth, please consider why you hold up something to be true, without any valid evidence of it being true. Otherwise, it ends up looking rather foolish, and hypocritical.

So amuater astromoners, professional astromeners, scientists, astronauts etc etc are all lying! Next you will be saying the earth is flat lolololoool

You are coming up with these stupid theories to suit your stupid beliefs, simple as that. You are the type of person that will cry demons if we found intelligent life in the universe. So glad that people like you are a dying breed!

Then explain how the moon can block out the blue skies, if it's 250,000 miles away....nobody else can, so try your best...

Any source would do, if you cannot explain it yourself...

a reply to: Jay-morris

IDFK



But you're start'n to grow on me

a reply to: turbonium1

Then explain how the moon can block out the blue skies, if it's 250,000 miles away....nobody else can, so try your best...

yeah I've explained this to you like three times... nothing sinks in with you

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

Then explain how the moon can block out the blue skies, if it's 250,000 miles away....nobody else can, so try your best...

yeah I've explained this to you like three times... nothing sinks in with you

You suggested it's merely an illusion of the moon, which is nonsense, as I told you over and over again.

When we see the moon at night, is it the real moon, or is it an illusion of the real moon? Which is it?

I've never heard anyone - at NASA, or anywhere else - claim this is NOT the actual moon we see above us, all the time...

Do you know anyone who's claimed that it is NOT the real moon we see, but rather, it is merely some sort of 'illusion', or a 'projection'?

They've never claimed that, right?

Of course not.

They've always said it is the actual moon we see above us at night. Nobody said it is an illusion, or projection of the moon we see above us at night.

The moon we see above us, at night, is the actual moon. Agreed?

a reply to: turbonium1

no I didn't say it was an illusion...

I said the brightness of the moon is greater then the prevailing light in the early morning or dusk...

its not under the "blue sky"... IF it was you'd always see the entire moon, but you see all the cycles of the moon...

in some cases it looks like its transparent... because the reflected light is bright enough to see in the "blue sky"...

and i'll just remind everyone that this is our resident flat earther

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: ravenshadow13
a reply to: turbonium1

There are so many problems with this.

Just curious if you were home schooled, or went to religious school? If you have any knowledge of chemistry or physics, or do those sciences just fly in the face of God in your mind?????

If someone had real evidence for this firmament then I would certainly consider it. I’m a science. I’ll consider any and all evidence. But some quote on someone’s tombstone is not evidence. Neither are videos that could be altered or come from who knows where. Show me something from a reputable source. Show me, you know, exactly how our satellites got past this firmament. And our space rovers. I’d be really curious about how that works.

Good grief.

The fathers of medicine used to believe in the humors and all sorts of things that are not real and that no one believes anymore unless they literally live in a world deprived of logic and evidence.

Von Braun had no reason to lie, he was dead. It's not solid proof, but you certainly cannot dismiss the world's top authority on rocketry, like it means nothing. Nice try though.

You have never seen, in person, or on film, a single rocket, or satellite launch, fly beyond the blue skies above Earth, and you never will, either.

No film TAKEN FROM EARTH shows any rocket or satellite fly beyond our blue skies, too. Are you aware of that fact? You are now.

Why, knowing this, do you believe rockets and satellites have flown into 'orbit'? There is no valid evidence of it, to confirm it is true.

When you try telling me I have no knowledge of sciences, or so forth, please consider why you hold up something to be true, without any valid evidence of it being true. Otherwise, it ends up looking rather foolish, and hypocritical.

So amuater astromoners, professional astromeners, scientists, astronauts etc etc are all lying! Next you will be saying the earth is flat lolololoool

You are coming up with these stupid theories to suit your stupid beliefs, simple as that. You are the type of person that will cry demons if we found intelligent life in the universe. So glad that people like you are a dying breed!

Then explain how the moon can block out the blue skies, if it's 250,000 miles away....nobody else can, so try your best...

Any source would do, if you cannot explain it yourself...

What? lol are you serious?

They claim it is the actual moon, so let's move along...

This actual moon we see at night is still there, in daylight skies, later on. Only its position above us has changed during that period of time. But it is the same actual moon, throughout the time, which we see above us, at night, into daylight, we see it the whole time, it doesn't switch or disappear for a moment, and reappear again, it's seen the whole time, at night, through into daylight.

That shows us it is the actual moon we see, all the time, because it doesn't change itself, or vanish and reappear as an illusion of some sort. It's the real moon, you're simply spewing out any excuse, to hold onto your hopeless argument.

Sad.

a reply to: turbonium1

lol no one said it wasn't the actual moon... but you

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

no I didn't say it was an illusion...

I said the brightness of the moon is greater then the prevailing light in the early morning or dusk...

its not under the "blue sky"... IF it was you'd always see the entire moon, but you see all the cycles of the moon...

in some cases it looks like its transparent... because the reflected light is bright enough to see in the "blue sky"...

and i'll just remind everyone that this is our resident flat earther

The moon could not block out blue sky unless it was LOWER than the blue sky. It cannot block the sky if it was 250,000 miles beyond the blue skies. Your claim is absolute nonsense.

If the moon was really 250,000 miles away, it could not block out the blue skies above Earth, since the whole atmosphere supposedly only goes out 30-40 miles above the Earth!

You claim the moon is in 'space', 250,000 miles away from Earth. If the atmosphere - or blue skies - are 40 miles above Earth, it could never go in front of our skies, and block out part of the sky from our view! Come on, get serious!

Transparency doesn't help your argument, either.

Look at a lampshade, blocking out a light, yet it is also transparent, in part. Do you think the lampshade isn't in front of the light, blocking it out, because part of it is transparent? Same as the moon blocks out blue sky, because it is BELOW the blue sky, while it is partially transparent, like a lampshade is.

Get it now?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

no I didn't say it was an illusion...

I said the brightness of the moon is greater then the prevailing light in the early morning or dusk...

its not under the "blue sky"... IF it was you'd always see the entire moon, but you see all the cycles of the moon...

in some cases it looks like its transparent... because the reflected light is bright enough to see in the "blue sky"...

and i'll just remind everyone that this is our resident flat earther

The moon could not block out blue sky unless it was LOWER than the blue sky. It cannot block the sky if it was 250,000 miles beyond the blue skies. Your claim is absolute nonsense.

If the moon was really 250,000 miles away, it could not block out the blue skies above Earth, since the whole atmosphere supposedly only goes out 30-40 miles above the Earth!

You claim the moon is in 'space', 250,000 miles away from Earth. If the atmosphere - or blue skies - are 40 miles above Earth, it could never go in front of our skies, and block out part of the sky from our view! Come on, get serious!

Transparency doesn't help your argument, either.

Look at a lampshade, blocking out a light, yet it is also transparent, in part. Do you think the lampshade isn't in front of the light, blocking it out, because part of it is transparent? Same as the moon blocks out blue sky, because it is BELOW the blue sky, while it is partially transparent, like a lampshade is.

Get it now?

Seriosly, the stupid belief people have to try and back up their sociopathic God is laughable! Did you also say earlier in this thread that their is no evidence of other galaxies!?

You are a religous fanatic! Cannot debate with people like you!

The reality is that an object can only block out something from view, if it is IN FRONT of it. Even a child knows that.


That goes for objects which reflect light, or are sources of light themselves.

Light does not make an object pierce through something lower, magically transform itself into some sort of SOLID OBJECT, once again, and BLOCK IT OUT as if it WERE a solid object below it!!

In daylight, we see that the moon is BELOW our blue skies, and that's how it can block it out, from our view. Simple as that. No goofy excuses needed, it's so simple, it's almost laughable you don't understand it, or don't WANT to, anyway.

The moon blocks out blue sky, because it is below the blue sky, and silly excuses cannot change that.

At least I know objects cannot block out the blue sky unless it's LOWER than the blue sky, unlike other people, who live in fantasy-world, where everything can become real, just by wishing hard enough for it!