The Drake Equation Fallacy

originally posted by: Jay-morris

Everything you just wrote is absolute rubbish, as usual, but for now I will home in on one thing. You praise an x Nazi, and a person responsible for millions of people's deaths, and only escaped the death penalty becsuse America wanted him to build their rockets. This is a guy you are using to prove your point!?

Oh, because he believes in God, then it all must be true lol

Why does that not suprise me!

No, because he was in position to KNOW what exists above Earth, because he basically invented rocketry, and the Saturn V, which supposedly flew men to the moon. Who would know better that the firmament existed, then the one person who was building something, that supposedly had proven the firmament DIDN'T exist?

Use your brain, man.

originally posted by: Jay-morris

Everything you just wrote is absolute rubbish, as usual, but for now I will home in on one thing. You praise an x Nazi, and a person responsible for millions of people's deaths, and only escaped the death penalty becsuse America wanted him to build their rockets. This is a guy you are using to prove your point!?

Oh, because he believes in God, then it all must be true lol

Why does that not suprise me!

No, because he was in position to KNOW what exists above Earth, because he basically invented rocketry, and the Saturn V, which supposedly flew men to the moon. Who would know better that the firmament existed, than the one person who was building something, that had supposedly proven the firmament DIDN'T exist?

Use your brain, man.

a reply to: turbonium1

It's incredibly sad, and ironic, that a book which speaks of loving all others, to treat others as you wish others treat you, would be twisted around, into a call to arms, for the purpose of slaughtering innocent people who did nothing to them, except for not accepting a religion, which would appear to them, encourages the murder and destruction of those who don't worship such evils as God's wish.

So, are you saying there is no verses in the bible where God commands the death of innocent men, women and children. Are you really saying that?

It's incredibly sad, and ironic, that a book which speaks of loving all others, to treat others as you wish others treat you, would be twisted around, into a call to arms, for the purpose of slaughtering innocent people who did nothing to them, except for not accepting a religion, which would appear to them, encourages the murder and destruction of those who don't worship such evils as God's wish.

So, are you saying God did not command the deaths of innocent men, women and children in the bible? Are you really saying that?

Science is the new religion, preaching to the ignorant masses, who follow them as God-like figures, above mere mortals. It's a scary thing, indeed.

I agree with you to a certain extent here, only becsuse this is a human thing. A lot of humans need to worship something, be it God, devil, science etc But at least there is truth in science, something we most of the times can measure.
Was it religon thatccured a lot of diseases, told us how planets, suns and galaxies formed. Told us about atoms and particles? No, it was science.

a reply to: turbonium1

No, because he was in position to KNOW what exists above Earth, because he basically invented rocketry, and the Saturn V, which supposedly flew men to the moon. Who would know better that the firmament existed, then the one person who was building something, that supposedly had proven the firmament DIDN'T exist?

Use your brain, man.

How the hell does that prove God existed lololol This is the most stupid thing I ever heard! lol

a reply to: Jay-morris

Science is the new religion, preaching to the ignorant masses, who follow them as God-like figures, above mere mortals. It's a scary thing, indeed.

Have you not noticed that it's only the religious people who make this claim? They can't stand the fact that someone might have a different view about religion so it must be that they are worshiping something else. It is also used as a method to
attack and undermine others that might dare use logic or common sense, nothing more. It's all they have. There's nothing more dangerous than a religious person when their beliefs are challenged!
I know of no Scientists who 'preach' or who are regarded as Godlike by others. Of course it is in our nature to have respect for those great thinkers that have enhanced our understanding about the nature of things. No one worships science.

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

Science is the new religion, preaching to the ignorant masses, who follow them as God-like figures, above mere mortals. It's a scary thing, indeed.

Have you not noticed that it's only the religious people who make this claim? They can't stand the fact that someone might have a different view about religion so it must be that they are worshiping something else. It is also used as a method to
attack and undermine others that who might dare use logic or common sense, nothing more. It's all they have. There's nothing more dangerous than a religious person when their beliefs are challenged!
I know of no Scientists who 'preach' or who are regarded as Godlike by others. Of course it is in our nature to have respect for those great thinkers that have enhanced our understanding about the nature of things. No one worships science.

Guys delusional! Even trying to use an x Nazi as proof of God lolol So, because the x Nazi was a clever man when it comes to rockets, but to use him as proof of a God is laughable! lol

a reply to: Jay-morris

Guys delusional!

Say's the guy who believes the impossible is possible as long as it isn't referred to as
a miracle or an act of God. Talk about narrow minded. PHHHF!

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

Guys delusional!

Say's the guy who believes the impossible is possible as long as it isn't referred to as
a miracle or an act of God. Talk about narrow minded. PHHHF!

Still waiting for your evidence that the bible is the word of God! You seem to be dodging that question too!

As for the person I replied too. He was questioning the existence of other galaxies because it did not fit his belief system. Are you saying that is not delusional?

a reply to: Jay-morris

Instead of waiting why don't you go back and read the answers I've
already given.



I think it's time for you to answer a few questions.

How did evolution keep us from living with dinosaurs.?

How does evolution account for life originating over millions of years in a hostile
environment?

Does science suggest that abiogenesis, natural selection, evolution, provide a
more probable account for the origin of life than creation or intelligent design?
If so please demonstrate clearly?

Have fun!

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

Instead of waiting why don't you go back and read the answers I've
already given.

I think it's time for you to answer a few questions.

How did evolution keep us from living with dinosaurs.?

How does evolution account for life originating over millions of years in a hostile
environment?

Does science suggest that abiogenesis, natural selection, evolution, provide a
more probable account for the origin of life than creation or intelligent design?
If so please demonstrate clearly?

Have fun!

Sorry? I am not going to answer your questions while you ignore and dodge mind.

Do, one more time! Show me the evidence that proves the bible is the word of God?

Both the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox might be irrelevant if these beings didn't live on a planet, but in another dimension, a non-physical dimension where there is no atomic matter.

If these beings could transverse between the dimensions and even assume physical form if they choose to do so......they would be like angels(good) and demons(bad)

A spiritual dimension separate from the physical universe.
700 Trillion years ago our physical universe never existed, but if you believe in God the dimension he lives in did.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

A spiritual dimension separate from the physical universe.
700 Trillion years ago our physical universe never existed, but if you believe in God the dimension he lives in did.

Yes And that would put God outside of the universe as I stated.
That he could not possibly be a capture of his own creation.
Also correlating to recent ideas of other dimensions being possible
according to theories in physics, if I'm not mistaken.

And even so, all that and still this resistance. It's odd.

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

Guys delusional!

Say's the guy who believes the impossible is possible as long as it isn't referred to as
a miracle or an act of God. Talk about narrow minded. PHHHF!

Says the guy that repeatedly lies about something being impossible with zero evidence or reason to even think such.

How did evolution keep us from living with dinosaurs.?

WHAT? An asteroid hit the earth and most dinosaurs couldn't survive it. Natural selection.

How does evolution account for life originating over millions of years in a hostile
environment?

It doesn't. Evolution is about how life changes over time, not the origin. You really need to educate yourself, a simple google search could have answered that for you.

Does science suggest that abiogenesis, natural selection, evolution, provide a
more probable account for the origin of life than creation or intelligent design?
If so please demonstrate clearly?Have fun!

Yes, because abiogenesis, natural selection, evolution have supporting testable evidence. Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, btw, it's not a theory like evolution. You really need to stop spewing uneducated ignorance. Abiogenesis is a viable possibility with SOME experimental evidence, while evolution is slam dunk proved in science. There is ZERO evidence for an intelligent designer. ZERO. More evidence = more probable, that's how science works.

a reply to: Barcs

Abiogenesis is a viable possibility with SOME experimental evidence, while evolution is slam dunk proved in science. There is ZERO evidence for an intelligent designer. ZERO.

A statement like this cannot be said without somebody replying, YEAH NO !

For example in America under 10% of the population are true atheists believing that statement, so you have a super minority opinion.
However nearly 1,000 professional philosophers from 99 leading departments of philosophy shows that 72.8% considered themselves as atheists, so it seems philosophy makes people over think it all, and think they know better than what they perceive to be the uneducated masses.

a reply to: Barcs

It doesn't. Evolution is about how life changes over time, not the origin. You really need to educate yourself, a simple google search could have answered that for you.

Why so I can lose all common sense like you? I could've written your answer for you.
Science doesn't work that way because everything science does is in a laboratory.
You have absolutely no proof that any of what science postulates can happen in a
hostile environment. why isn't it happening some where out there right now?
Hey look out your pants are on fire. I'm not lying about anything and It's hilarious
that you can't have a conversation without making stupid accusations. Get over
yourself.

a reply to: carsforkids

Several reasons that laboratories have struggled to recreate the exact moment of life's birth on this planet is because of the exact set of environmental factors and time frame required to simulate that chain of chemical reactions happening all around the world simultaneously. One benefit to inventing a super computer I suppose. Maybe Dan Brown's Origin novel isn't so far away.

originally posted by: Barcs
while evolution is slam dunk proved in science.

Like what? Seriously.

1) There is no complete fossil of any of the theoretical missing links leading up to homo sapien, despite a theoretical 25 million years of time for such fossils to accumulate

2) Dinosaurs undoubtedly lived alongside humans, further reinforced by carbon dating and soft-tissue being found in dinosaur remains summary (link)

3) There is no laboratory evidence that an organism can change into another organism, despite millions of generations of labs attempting to do so around the world

4) There is no demonstration that a novel functional protein can be created from a previously functionless protein via random mutations.

5) Epigenetics is the main factor that allows organisms to adapt, but by its nature does not allow change outside of a particular bound. The mechanisms that were once assumed to be evolution at work are actually just an already set genome changing expression up and down within a particular boundary.

There is ZERO evidence for an intelligent designer.

Of course there is. ALL universal laws act according to very intelligent meticulous patterns that have been perpetuating since the beginning of written history.

Electromagnetism
thermodynamics
Kinetics
E = mc2
etc, etc, etc, all act according to very precise laws. All laws known to humankind were created by something intelligent. Intelligence is a requirement for ordered systems to be created and perpetuate.

For you to keep saying there is no evidence for intelligence is extremely unintelligent.

a reply to: cooperton

And.... once again you show you don't understand science.

(a) There is no such thing as a missing link or transitory fossil. You don't generally get sudden changes, as those tend to be catastrophically fatal, or result in no passing on of genetic materials.
(b) Show a source beside your creationist misrepresentations for dinosaurs and humans coexisting. Oh and no Jurassic park is fiction, so don't do that as an example.
(3) There is no lab examples of many scientific theories (say why gravitation works) so thats not evidence.
(4) You don't understand epigenetics. Its clear.

Show scientifically verifiable evidence of the Gods creating life. Remember I say this as a (poly)Theistic scientist. Gnosis and eídein are different beasts.

originally posted by: Noinden

(a) There is no such thing as a missing link or transitory fossil. You don't generally get sudden changes, as those tend to be catastrophically fatal, or result in no passing on of genetic materials.

What are you talking about? I wasn't saying there would be a sudden change, if there were, in theory, a gradual change from apes to humans, there would be fossil evidence of this transition. But there is not one complete fossil of such.

(b) Show a source beside your creationist misrepresentations for dinosaurs and humans coexisting.

Here are some of the ancient relics we have that show that humans saw dinosaurs:

Brachiosaurus


Utah's White Canyon Region



Amazon Rain Forest Basin in Northern Peru


El Toro Mountain part of the "Acambaro Figurine" collection found by Waldemar Julsrud



Mesopotamian Cylinder Seal of Uruk currently housed in the Louvre


Housed at the British Museum



By the North American Anasazi in the area now known as Utah. A natural brownish film over top the cave drawing authenticates its age.




A mysterious excavation in Tucson Arizona unearthed 31 Roman-style artifacts. One of which was this sword.


Protoceratops



Hongshan carvings approximately 4,000 years ago China

(3) There is no lab examples of many scientific theories (say why gravitation works)

Earth's gravitational acceleration of 9.8m/s2 is repeatable and observable in a lab. Evolution is not repeatable or observable in a lab, despite scientists trying for a long, long time.

You can believe in evolution, but it is a faith not based in any empirical science.

a reply to: TzarChasm




Thank you for the reply and I hope I haven't offended you with
anything you've read here. It'd be unrealistic of me to expect
others to display as much tolerance as you have. Diversity right?

We are, or rather speaking only for myself. I feel so far apart from
people like yourself and Barcs and Jay. I can't even imagine how
the knowledge you guys possess makes my argument so preposterous.

But I accept that it does and appreciate tolerance like yours when
I come across it. It is important if only for myself for you guys
to know I realize I'm no match for your education. I realize I
look ridiculous almost at your will. But I spar with you anyway as
long as feel I still have viable point.

To this day since I was ten years old. I haven't been shown a
sensible reason to change my mind to something that will
only make less sense to me. Not only in regards to this
subject but in everyday life as well. What science has to offer
doesn't compare to what I already have. Any ways I only ask
that you allow me to treat you all with the respect I feel you
have coming to you.

So why do I see these astronomical unbelievable odds go up
in my head against what you kindly explained here Tzar? Is
that a better way to ask maybe? Or rather how is it you gents
don't even seem to understand why it seems so, I'm sorry, but
beyond probable to me? It's like I'm completely missing something.

DON'T SAY IT1 lol

Hoping I used a better choice of words.

Several reasons that laboratories have struggled to recreate the exact moment of life's birth on this planet is because of the exact set of environmental factors and time frame required to simulate that chain of chemical reactions happening all around the world simultaneously.