The Drake Equation Fallacy

originally posted by: cooperton
...
You suppose the greatest scientists in history don't believe in God? That is absurd. Here's one of my favorites:

Here's one especially for you:

To put those quotations into some more context and leaving some more reminders how this ties into the subject of this thread...

For 50 years, British philosopher Antony Flew was highly respected as an atheist by his peers. “Theology and Falsification,” his 1950 paper, “became the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the [20th] century.” In 1986 Flew was called “the most profound of the contemporary critics of theism” (the belief in God or gods). So it came as a great shock to many when, in 2004, Flew announced that he had changed his viewpoint.

What made Flew change his mind? In a word, science. He became convinced that the universe, the laws of nature, and life itself could not have arisen merely by chance. Is that a reasonable conclusion?

How did the laws of nature arise?

“The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature,” wrote Flew in 2007, “but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and ‘tied together.’ Einstein spoke of them as ‘reason incarnate.’ The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked​—and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God.”

Indeed, many highly respected scientists do not consider it unscientific to believe in an intelligent First Cause. On the other hand, to say that the universe, its laws, and life just happened is intellectually unsatisfying. Everyday experience tells us that design​—especially highly sophisticated design—​calls for a designer.

The new atheists promote the notion that “all religious faith is blind faith,” writes John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, England. He adds: “We need to emphasize strongly that they are wrong.” Consider, for example, the origin of life.

Evolutionists readily acknowledge that the origin of life remains a mystery​—although there are many conflicting theories. A leading new atheist, Richard Dawkins, claims that by virtue of the vast number of planets that must exist in the universe, life was bound to appear somewhere. But many reputable scientists are not so sure. Cambridge Professor John Barrow says that the belief in “the evolution of life and mind” hits “dead-ends at every stage. There are just so many ways in which life can fail to evolve in a complex and hostile environment that it would be sheer hubris to suppose that, simply given enough carbon and enough time, anything is possible.”

Keep in mind, too, that life is not just an assortment of chemical elements. Rather, it is based on an extremely sophisticated form of information, which is encoded in DNA. Hence, when we talk about the origin of life, we are also talking about the origin of biological information. What is the only source of information that we know of? In a word, intelligence. Would chance accidents produce complex information, such as a computer program, an algebraic formula, an encyclopedia, or even a recipe for a cake? Of course not. Yet, when it comes to sophistication and efficiency, none of these even begin to compare with the information stored in the genetic code of living organisms.

Luck as the first cause​—good science?

According to atheists, “the universe is as it is, mysteriously, and it just happens to permit life,” explains Paul Davies. “Had it been different,” say atheists, “we would not be here to argue about it. The universe may or may not have a deep underlying unity, but there is no design, purpose, or point to it all​—at least none that would make sense to us.” “The advantage of this position,” notes Davies, “is that it is easy to hold​—easy to the point of being a cop-out,” that is, a convenient way to avoid facing the issue.

In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, molecular biologist Michael Denton concluded that the theory of evolution “is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious . . . scientific theory.” He also referred to Darwinian evolution as one of the greatest myths of our time.

To be sure, the appeal to luck as the first cause does smack of myth. Imagine this: An archaeologist sees a rough stone that is more or less square. He may attribute that shape to chance, which would be reasonable. But later he finds a stone that is perfectly formed in the shape of a human bust, down to the finest details. Does he attribute this item to chance? No. His logical mind says, ‘Someone made this.’ Using similar reasoning, the Bible states: “Every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.” (Hebrews 3:4)

“The more we get to know about our universe,” writes Lennox, “the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator God, who designed the universe for a purpose, gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

a reply to: Barcs

You've accused every believer here of lying. Why? You couldn't
possibly be convinced we would have any reason to do such a thing.
Do you even understand the implications of that? I gotta hand it
to ya you couldn't have possibly picked a better insult. Good on
you.


Despite your argument against it I have shown that the conclusions
science makes are not even possible in nature. Even scientists agree.
If you say natural selection has been observed in nature I would call
that a super extraordinary claim. But asking you to prove it would be
impossible I suppose because you can't' make nature repeat itself. So
that's convenient?

Science can not make life in a lab no matter how science works.
Not even close. Even if that could be done it would still remain impossible
in a hostile environment. How you can ridicule the belief in a Creator
when it just makes you look disingenuous is on you.

Truth is in this thread I have shown how science is anything but convincing.
Therefore to abandon my pre existing belief in creation would certainly
be the most ignorant thing I have ever done or ever could do. And I have
done a lot of stupid shlt. Sadly many have but I won't be one one of them.

Evil love justice and forgiveness what's the one event in the world where all
four converged?

I will never understand a heart that has hardened itself against God. There
is no reason for it.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: cooperton
...
You suppose the greatest scientists in history don't believe in God? That is absurd. Here's one of my favorites:

Here's one especially for you:

To put those quotations into some more context and leaving some more reminders how this ties into the subject of this thread...

For 50 years, British philosopher Antony Flew was highly respected as an atheist by his peers. “Theology and Falsification,” his 1950 paper, “became the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the [20th] century.” In 1986 Flew was called “the most profound of the contemporary critics of theism” (the belief in God or gods). So it came as a great shock to many when, in 2004, Flew announced that he had changed his viewpoint.

What made Flew change his mind? In a word, science. He became convinced that the universe, the laws of nature, and life itself could not have arisen merely by chance. Is that a reasonable conclusion?

How did the laws of nature arise?

“The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature,” wrote Flew in 2007, “but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and ‘tied together.’ Einstein spoke of them as ‘reason incarnate.’ The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked​—and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God.”

Indeed, many highly respected scientists do not consider it unscientific to believe in an intelligent First Cause. On the other hand, to say that the universe, its laws, and life just happened is intellectually unsatisfying. Everyday experience tells us that design​—especially highly sophisticated design—​calls for a designer.

The new atheists promote the notion that “all religious faith is blind faith,” writes John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, England. He adds: “We need to emphasize strongly that they are wrong.” Consider, for example, the origin of life.

Evolutionists readily acknowledge that the origin of life remains a mystery​—although there are many conflicting theories. A leading new atheist, Richard Dawkins, claims that by virtue of the vast number of planets that must exist in the universe, life was bound to appear somewhere. But many reputable scientists are not so sure. Cambridge Professor John Barrow says that the belief in “the evolution of life and mind” hits “dead-ends at every stage. There are just so many ways in which life can fail to evolve in a complex and hostile environment that it would be sheer hubris to suppose that, simply given enough carbon and enough time, anything is possible.”

Keep in mind, too, that life is not just an assortment of chemical elements. Rather, it is based on an extremely sophisticated form of information, which is encoded in DNA. Hence, when we talk about the origin of life, we are also talking about the origin of biological information. What is the only source of information that we know of? In a word, intelligence. Would chance accidents produce complex information, such as a computer program, an algebraic formula, an encyclopedia, or even a recipe for a cake? Of course not. Yet, when it comes to sophistication and efficiency, none of these even begin to compare with the information stored in the genetic code of living organisms.

Luck as the first cause​—good science?

According to atheists, “the universe is as it is, mysteriously, and it just happens to permit life,” explains Paul Davies. “Had it been different,” say atheists, “we would not be here to argue about it. The universe may or may not have a deep underlying unity, but there is no design, purpose, or point to it all​—at least none that would make sense to us.” “The advantage of this position,” notes Davies, “is that it is easy to hold​—easy to the point of being a cop-out,” that is, a convenient way to avoid facing the issue.

In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, molecular biologist Michael Denton concluded that the theory of evolution “is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious . . . scientific theory.” He also referred to Darwinian evolution as one of the greatest myths of our time.

To be sure, the appeal to luck as the first cause does smack of myth. Imagine this: An archaeologist sees a rough stone that is more or less square. He may attribute that shape to chance, which would be reasonable. But later he finds a stone that is perfectly formed in the shape of a human bust, down to the finest details. Does he attribute this item to chance? No. His logical mind says, ‘Someone made this.’ Using similar reasoning, the Bible states: “Every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.” (Hebrews 3:4)

“The more we get to know about our universe,” writes Lennox, “the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator God, who designed the universe for a purpose, gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

Because a scientist or other expert starts believing in God, does not make them any credible!

So, if there is an all power dude with a beard who made everything in six days, then who made him?

At the end of the day, religous logic is flawed in so many ways. Why is it flawed? Because it's man made, and it shows!

a reply to: Jay-morris

So, if there is an all power dude with a beard who made everything in six days, then who made him?

At the end of the day, religous logic is flawed in so many ways. Why is it flawed? Because it's man made, and it shows!

What is it you don't understand about a causeless cause? You keep restating
your opinion as if it were some kind of chant. It isn't making your argument more
valid. Do you believe you can win by repetition? Maybe you're still try'n to convince
yourself? I bet it's the latter. And my wish for you is a complete fail. You could use a
taste of humility.

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

So, if there is an all power dude with a beard who made everything in six days, then who made him?

At the end of the day, religous logic is flawed in so many ways. Why is it flawed? Because it's man made, and it shows!

What is it you don't understand about a causeless cause? You keep restating
your opinion as if it were some kind of chant. It isn't making your argument more
valid. Do you believe you can win by repetition? Maybe you're still try'n to convince
yourself? I bet it's the latter. And my wish for you is a complete fail. You could use a
taste of humility.

I repeat, you ignore! You have been doing that the whole thread, nothing new there. So please tell me. If everything was made in 7 days, why are stats, galaxies still be born. And why does it take millions/billions of years for them to evolve?

If God made our sun, our solar system in 6 days, why does it take millions/billions of other stars/planets/Galaxies to evolve.

Can you answer that question?

a reply to: Jay-morris

I repeat, you ignore! You have been doing that the whole thread, nothing new there. So please tell me. If everything was made in 7 days, why are stats, galaxies still be born. And why does it take millions/billions of years for them to evolve?

If God made our sun, our solar system in 6 days, why does it take millions/billions of other stars/planets/Galaxies to evolve.

Can you answer that question?

Can you prove any of that No so that's why it gets ignored.

Babies are born none of that means God didn't create it. Next!

Nothing was ignored I said nothing in the universe explains it's own existence.

Reading comprehension!

Keep try''n But you have nothing that's even close to convincing.

Can you prove God doesn't exist?

originally posted by: carsforkids
Can you prove God doesn't exist?

Can't prove a negative. It's up to the proponent to provide positive proof.

a reply to: carsforkids

Can you prove any of that No so that's why it gets ignored.

What are you talking about lol We cancsee galaxies And systems forming. Seriously!?

Babies are born none of that means God didn't create it. Next!

What lol So God created babies to live in poverty all their lives, to be born with conditions and diseases that end their lives before it's even begun! But he loves them!

Nothing was ignored I said nothing in the universe explains it's own existence.

You have ignored my comments, or made stupid remarks like "prove galaxies are still forming" when the evidence is there! You do not even understand the basic concepts of the universe, and it's science!

Keep try''n But you have nothing that's even close to convincing.

That's easy to say when you have pretty much ignored everything!

Can you prove God doesn't exist?

Can you prove he does exists?No! All you have is faith!

Can you prove aliens do not exist? No!
Can you prove the tooth fairy does not exist? No!
Can you prove Bigfoot does not exist? No!

I could go on and on!

a reply to: Blue Shift

There are arguments for that. But for the sake of the argument in this context I'll concede.

a reply to: Jay-morris

What are you talking about lol We cancsee galaxies And systems forming. Seriously!?

You must have some damn good eyes there amigo!

What lol So God created babies to live in poverty all their lives, to be born with conditions and diseases that end their lives before it's even begun! But he loves them!

Glad we agree on something.

You have ignored my comments, or made stupid remarks like "prove galaxies are still forming" when the evidence is there! in You do not even understand the basic concepts of the universe, and it's science!

Where? Show me the evidence?

I understand that the totality of the universe and physical reality by no means
could ever give us the slightest hint that God does not exist.

Pretty much all you've accomplished here is to redundantly use the word
seriously, lol at nothing, cry because your incoherent posts get ignored.
And prove that you've had lengthy conversations with walls sometime in the past.

If you have nothing to contribute other than your shallow opinion I'm done
wasting my time with you.

a reply to: carsforkids

You must have some damn good eyes there amigo!

LOL Seriously! How do you think we gave photos of deep space? It's called telescopes! This is just too funny! You with we know all this stuff and data without evidence? lol

Where? Show me the evidence?

I understand that the totality of the universe and physical reality by no means
could ever give us the slightest hint that Gods does not exist.

Pretty much all you've accomplished here is to redundantly use the word
seriously, lol at nothing, cry because your incoherent posts get ignored.
And prove that you've had lengthy conversations with walls sometime in the past.

If you have nothing to contribute other than your shallow opinion I'm done
wasting my time with you.

You have given no evidence that God exists! Your interpretation of God is from a book written over 100s of years by primitive men.

So, I am still waiting for this evidence!

You do not even know about the powerful telescopes we use to see what we can of the universe. You did not even know we have see systems being born, and destroyed. We can see new stars being born. You know none if this, so how can you be taken seriously!?

a reply to: Jay-morris

I don't expect a godless troll to take anything seriously.


But you wait right there and I'll be back with that evidence you want.

a reply to: carsforkids

I like this point in the article you linked:

As Steven D. Hales points in his paper "You Can Prove a Negative," "You can't prove a negative" is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic.

Notice, for a start, that "You cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative. So, if it were true, it would itself be unprovable.

1 Timothy 6:20 sums it up nicely though:

20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.”

The video concerning the claim that there is no evidence for God that I linked earlier also responds to the claim that you supposedly can't prove a negative. A red herring to distract from seriously considering, discussing or acknowledging the actual evidence for God's existence (so one can start a debate about the burden of proof instead, when that burden has already been more than met regarding God's existence and the evidence for it; being in denial of the evidence doesn't warrant the claim that there is no evidence for God, as if your opinion of the evidence negates it, which is rather silly if one considers the type of objections actually raised against the evidence, or should I say the excuses used to deny the evidence).

In case anyone feels like playing the game that no evidence for God's existence was presented at all in this thread (which still wouldn't warrant the claim mentioned above about there being no evidence, which was made several times in this thread), this article sums up some of the evidence that I already brought up in this thread as well:

Does God Exist?

Don't bother expressing your 'nuh-uh's if you feel the things mentioned don't count as evidence. In some cases here, it's already quite obvious how they view and treat the subject. And I guess most here have heard it all before, from both sides.

We haven't seen galaxies, or anything else in 'space'. They claim to see those things in 'space', that's not proof of any sort.

Everyone of us sees the same stars above us, as everyone saw thousands of years ago. That is a fact, not someone saying they saw a galaxy out there, which nobody else has ever seen

Oh....right, we can't look for ourselves, it's not allowed!

originally posted by: turbonium1
We haven't seen galaxies, or anything else in 'space'. They claim to see those things in 'space', that's not proof of any sort.

Everyone of us sees the same stars above us, as everyone saw thousands of years ago. That is a fact, not someone saying they saw a galaxy out there, which nobody else has ever seen

Oh....right, we can't look for ourselves, it's not allowed!

What! lolololololol You are talking about what we see with the naked eye! Are you saying all the photos we have taken from powerful telescopes like bubble are fake? Seriously! Can you people get any more stupid?

originally posted by: Jay-morris

So, if there is an all power dude with a beard who made everything in six days, then who made him?

Maybe if you tone down on the straw man ridicule, your questions would be more productive. Incidentally, a more honest version of that question was already asked and answered earlier in this thread. It was answered with a somewhat rhetorical question (a question intended for someone to think about it and come up with an obvious answer themselves, even though the answer was almost already spelled out in the question).

There's little point in answering dishonest questions about God that use a straw man cartoon version of God incorporating* young earth creationism in the question for ridicule purposes. None of which accurately reflects any of the conclusions and matching evidence discussed in my commentary concerning God's existence and Creation, and my consequent beliefs/opinions regarding those subjects (I'm also not a young earth creationist; *: there seems to be an implication or intended trigger regarding young earth creationism in the mention of "made everything in six days").

It's just a bit too infantile to answer on this occasion. Hebrews 5:13,14:

13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment* [Or “their perceptive powers.”] trained to distinguish both right and wrong.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Jay-morris

So, if there is an all power dude with a beard who made everything in six days, then who made him?

Maybe if you tone down on the straw man ridicule, your questions would be more productive. Incidentally, a more honest version of that question was already asked and answered earlier in this thread. It was answered with a somewhat rhetorical question (a question intended for someone to think about it and come up with an obvious answer themselves, even though the answer was almost already spelled out in the question).

There's little point in answering dishonest questions about God that use a straw man cartoon version of God incorporating* young earth creationism in the question for ridicule purposes. None of which accurately reflects any of the conclusions and matching evidence discussed in my commentary concerning God's existence and Creation, and my consequent beliefs/opinions regarding those subjects (I'm also not a young earth creationist; *: there seems to be an implication or intended trigger regarding young earth creationism in the mention of "made everything in six days").

It's just a bit too infantile to answer on this occasion. Hebrews 5:13,14:

13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment* [Or “their perceptive powers.”] trained to distinguish both right and wrong.

Straw man? The guy has pretty much ignored my points! He even thinks we have no evidence of systems being born and dying! Sorry, but when you are dealing with someone as delusional as that, you do get frustrated!

But the main thing is this! There is no evidence that their is a God. There is no evidence that the bible is the word of God!

What evidence do we have? We have evidence that the bible is man made. We have evidence thst s lot of the stuff in the bible is BS. We have no evidence in the bible that talk about dinosaurs and micro orgsnisms. Why? Because people back then did not know sbout them! When they wrote about everything being made in six days, they did not know about the universe. They did not know about the billions of galaxies out there that took billions of years to form, and are still being formed as the universe expand to this day!

They knew none of this, hence the reason it's not mentioned.

It's obvious that the bible is the word of man, and not God! Is is a coincidence that God was as primitive in thinking as man was back then?

The thing is though, you will not change people's minds on this, well, most people. It's blind faith!

a reply to: whereislogic

The video concerning the claim that there is no evidence for God that I linked earlier also responds to the claim that you supposedly can't prove a negative.

Yes and of course I watched the whole vid then set about
to find something I could quote on it. And here I been play'n the
fool for sometime now just taking these people at their word.
Then I thought to ask Jay To prove God doesn't exist just to see if
he even watched the video? But Blue Shift responded and blew that
for me. Lmao

Whatta calamity!

]

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: whereislogic

The video concerning the claim that there is no evidence for God that I linked earlier also responds to the claim that you supposedly can't prove a negative.

Yes and of course I watched the whole vid then set about
to find something I could quote on it. And here I been play'n the
fool for sometime now just taking these people at their word.
Then I thought to ask Jay To prove God doesn't exist just see if
he even watched the video? But Blue Shift responded and blew that
for me. Lmao

Whatta calamity!

Do you read? I answered that question!

Can you prove aliens do not exist? No!
Can you prove the tooth fairy does not exist? No!
Can you prove Bigfoot does not exist? No!

I could go on and on!

Your basic argument that life does not exist in the universe is we have no evidence.

But you believe in God, without no evidence, only faith! You realise how stupid that sounds!?

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: turbonium1
We haven't seen galaxies, or anything else in 'space'. They claim to see those things in 'space', that's not proof of any sort.

Everyone of us sees the same stars above us, as everyone saw thousands of years ago. That is a fact, not someone saying they saw a galaxy out there, which nobody else has ever seen

Oh....right, we can't look for ourselves, it's not allowed!

What! lolololololol You are talking about what we see with the naked eye! Are you saying all the photos we have taken from powerful telescopes like bubble are fake? Seriously! Can you people get any more stupid?

How many 'photos' make it real? 10 or 20? Perhaps 100 or 1000?

They've got thousands of photos, so they must be real, therefore!!

Piles of crap are still crap, just more of it.


What makes a lie seem real is repeating the lie over and over and over again. It seems impossible to fake all this, so it must be real, and it's all because they fake it again and again.

This trick always works like a charm. Just like we see it work, right here.