The Drake Equation Fallacy

a reply to: Jay-morris

Not hard to give a decent response when it comes to this rubbish!

Well then why do you make yourself appear to have such a problem
doing so? When all the condescending rhetoric you use just makes
you look like an adolescent. it impresses no one and is in no way
indicative of intelligence.

All you have to do if you want to participate is give
a clear concise response that refutes a claim. When you try to make
others look stupid it only makes your argument look less believable.

Especially in this topic where you can't argue against the obvious
bias science and secular academia openly display. This whole
argument wouldn't even exist. If science wasn't trying to replace
a long held world wide belief system. With a theory that is
even less believable. Any way...

Now was Darwin not completely bias in his research to the
point of purposely looking for a way to refute creationism?

Is this whole theory not the brain child of a man who hated God?
See how you do with that okay?

Oh and if it really was rubbish I doubt you would even be here at
all let alone the whole thread.

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

Not hard to give a decent response when it comes to this rubbish!

Well then why do you make yourself appear to have such a problem
doing so? When all the condescending rhetoric you use just makes
you look like an adolescent. it impresses no one and is in no way
indicative of intelligence.

All you have to do if you want to participate is give
a clear concise response that refutes a claim. When you try to make
others look stupid it only makes your argument look less believable.

Especially in this topic where you can't argue against the obvious
bias science and secular academia openly display. This whole
argument wouldn't even exist. If science wasn't trying to replace
a long held world wide belief system. With a theory that is
even less believable. Any way...

Now was Darwin not completely bias in his research to the
point of purposely looking for a way to refute creationism?

Is this whole theory not the brain child of a man who hated God?
See how you do with that okay?

Oh and if it really was rubbish I doubt you would even be here at
all let alone the whole thread.

Again! You ramble on and on, without actually saying any to help hour cause. You have the cheek to say I have ignored evidence on this thread (clearly I have not) when you have spent the time ignoring and dodging points put to you regarding this.

And the cooperton posts so called evidence that proves humans and dinosaurs existed together, and you instantly believe him without checking out the so called evidence he posted!

You talk about how bad science is, but all you have is belief in a book written by humans!

So, I will asked you the question one more time! What evidence is in the bible that proves that God is real? Can you answer it this time?

a reply to: Jay-morris

Yeah What was I think'n?

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

Yeah What was I think'n?

Simple question! You are soooooo sure! So please answer my question!

originally posted by: Jay-morris
What evidence is in the bible that proves that God is real?

A human came and defeated death through a devotion to God. What else would you want?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Jay-morris
What evidence is in the bible that proves that God is real?

A human came and defeated death through a devotion to God. What else would you want?

What? lolol

originally posted by: Jay-morris
What? lolol

You said you wanted proof of God in the Bible. In the Bible there is the story of Jesus who devotes himself to the Will of God and defeats death. No human through any other means has ever defeated death. Death is the bane and fear of human existence, and Jesus showed that God is above that.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Jay-morris
What? lolol

You said you wanted proof of God in the Bible. In the Bible there is the story of Jesus who devotes himself to the Will of God and defeats death. No human through any other means has ever defeated death. Death is the bane and fear of human existence, and Jesus showed that God is above that.

And how is this evidence? It is a story, not evidence! Seriously! Can you do better than that?

originally posted by: cooperton
Dear dog,

I can't remember one single time where you posted anything relevant, beyond insults and hyperbolic claims.

Then you have a TERRIBLE memory or are being willfully ignorant. Don't forget I've been on this website for 15 years. I don't explain things to people that I've already explained to them to ad nauseam. You are the poster boy for young earth creationism, honesty isn't part of the program.

Your entire MO is:

1. Post a previously debunked claim
2. Ignore and deny all responses and data that conflicts
3. Call people that are skeptical about your claims brainwashed and attribute fake fallacies to them
4. Wait until everyone forgets and then re-post the original claim ignoring all previous objections

Rinse and repeat.

Explaining things to you falls on deaf ears, there is literally no point. I only explain things in detail to people that are willing to listen or capable of understanding them. I usually give new people the benefit of the doubt at first.

For example what specific fallacy does the Drake Equation commit? Nobody has answered that question, yet it's in the title of the thread. Every single person that argued against it, did not even understand what the equation was or how probability theories in math are treated. You guys tried to fault the equation for not factoring in an unfalsifiable claim, which is laughable. You just have been programmed to think life only exists on earth, cuz bible says so.

I assume more deflections to dinosaurs and other previously debunked claims, rather than actually supporting your argument and staying on topic?

your blind zealous faith in random mutant material manifestation of life

And you finish off with a straw man. How fitting.

originally posted by: carsforkids
You just denied the evidence that dinosaurs living with man. And the fact
that even archaeologist's believe ancient peoples only depicted observations
in their artwork. And you claim we're "Pathetically dishonest and in denial?

That's not evidence, numb nuts, practically everything he posted has already been explained and refuted, not a single claim is testable or repeatable, it's literally just an appeal to artwork and vague similarities akin to a child thinking an apple is similar to an orange. LMFAO @ thinking that people ONLY depict observations and absolutely cannot come up with creative ideas in art, despite that being well documented throughout our entire history as a civilized species. You can't even post a single scientific research paper that backs this claim, yet you just assume all conflicting science is wrong and dismiss it. Yep, pathetically dishonest, just as I said.

How science works:

That's an interesting observation. Maybe it is explained by X. Let's see if we can set up some tests to find out if that is consistent with reality.

How science does NOT work:

OMG, look at that artwork! Let's just assume it means they saw real dinosaurs ruling out all other rational possibilities despite having no evidence supporting that claim. In fact, let's also ignore all previous data and evidence that conflicts with it and just believe this as absolute truth without even testing any of it, cuz it looks similar and that explanation feels good.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Jay-morris
What evidence is in the bible that proves that God is real?

A human came and defeated death through a devotion to God. What else would you want?

This is why I bust your chops. You are unable to have a single logical or rational thought. This is not evidence or proof of anything. This is a CLAIM, which has never been proved in any meaningful way. Blind belief in ancient stories that can't be verified or demonstrated. Are you going to talk about the drake equation or keep deflecting to dinos and young earth creationism?

Hey guys! I totally have proof of green faced Spaghetti haired men living in Peru with the Nazca. I mean they ONLY depict direct observations in art, so this is obviously something they have seen with their eyes. Plus you have clear evidence of a pumpkin human hybrid in the background, complete with the green stems on top! How can you deny this empirical evidence???? Humans clearly lived with FSM!

ALL HAIL FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!

a reply to: Barcs

Lol... classic

a reply to: Barcs

Are you still push'n this evolution crap? Seems like your confidence high?

The arts not even important any way. The fact is intelligent
design is the only explanation for the origin of biological information.
There simply is no other way to explain it. Science is never going to
breath life into inanimate tissue. And if science can't do that in a lab.
Then it can't convince me it can happen in a hostile environment and
you know that's the truth. Teaching our kids this half baked crap and it's
just a hoax. Made up and pushed by atheists who think it backs up what
they hope is true. Nothing in existence supports your dismal boring
ungrateful secularism. So you're the only lying here it's just been to
yourself so no one complains.

Good luck

Talking about using artwork to bolster the preferred fantasies and myths of some people...

TEXTBOOK DRAWINGS AND MODELS OF APE-MEN

Fact: Depictions in textbooks and museums of the so-called ancestors of humans are often shown with specific facial features, skin color, and amount of hair. These depictions usually show the older “ancestors” with monkeylike features and the ones supposedly closer to humans with more humanlike facial features, skin tone, and hair.

Question: Can scientists reliably reconstruct such features based on the fossilized remains that they find?

Answer: No. In 2003, forensics expert Carl N. Stephan, who works at the Department of Anatomical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Australia, wrote: “The faces of earlier human ancestors cannot be objectively constructed or tested.” He says that attempts to do so based on modern apes “are likely to be heavily biased, grossly inaccurate, and invalid.” His conclusion? “Any facial ‘reconstructions’ of earlier hominids are likely to be misleading.”47
...
47. Science and Justice, Vol. 43, No. 4, (2003) section, Forensic Anthropology, “Anthropological Facial ‘Reconstruction’​—Recognizing the Fallacies, ‘Unembracing’ the Errors, and Realizing Method Limits,” by C. N. Stephan, p. 195.

Source: Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? (The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking)

The behaviour is not unique to young earth creationists. Paint as many dinosaurs with feathers as you like, it's not going to change the reality of the matter.

When a Fact Is Not a Fact (Awake!—1987)

...
Gould ridicules believers in creation who argue that “God permits limited modification within created types, but that you can never change a cat into a dog.” He then asks: “Who ever said that you could, or that nature did?” Nevertheless, he believes in a much harder change. Cat to dog would at least be mammal to mammal, whereas Gould says “dinosaurs evolve into birds.”

Irving Kristol in his article in The New York Times concludes: “The current teaching of evolution in our public schools does indeed have an ideological bias against religious belief​—teaching as ‘fact’ what is only hypothesis. . . . If believing Christians are persuaded that their children are not exposed to anti-religious instruction, one may reasonably hope that they will feel comfortable once again with this American tradition [separation of Church and State].”

Kristol shows the wisdom of this doctrine of separation when he says: “Theological issues can so easily become a focus of conflict.” That is exactly what the “scientific creationism” advanced by some creationists would become if it was taught in the classroom. Several of its contentions are not Scriptural. To name only one, that the creative days of Genesis are 24-hour days. The Hebrew word translated “day” can be and is used in the Bible to be 12 hours, 24 hours, a season, a year, a thousand years, or several thousand years, depending on its particular setting and usage.

The classroom is not the place to air religious differences. Neither is it the place, as Kristol says, for teaching hypothetical evolution as a fact, when in actuality it has itself become a modern-day religion supported only by dogmatism.

Gould appropriately says that “myths become beliefs through adulterated repetition without proper documentation.” True. That is how religious creeds were formed that say the Bible teaches that the soul is immortal, that wicked people are tormented in hellfire forever, that God is a Trinity of three persons in one, that the days of creation in Genesis chapter 1 are 24-hour days​—and all of this without proper documentation from the Bible.

And that is also how the evolutionary litany that ‘evolution is a fact’ becomes a belief: through “repetition without proper documentation” from scientific evidence.

[Blurb on page 11]

“We just don’t know of any such ‘quantum jumps’”

...

[Box/​Picture on page 12]

“Dinosaurs evolve into birds”?

Consider: Birds are warm-blooded, reptiles cold; birds incubate their eggs, reptiles don’t; birds have feathers, reptiles scales; birds have hollow bones, reptiles solid; birds have air-cooled engines, reptiles don’t; birds have four-chambered hearts, reptiles three-chambered; birds have a syrinx for singing, reptiles don’t. Plus much more. Cat to dog, which Gould ridicules, is a stingy step compared to the quantum leap from reptile to bird, which Gould accepts!

originally posted by: whereislogic
Talking about using artwork to bolster the preferred fantasies and myths of some people...
...
The behaviour is not unique to young earth creationists. Paint as many dinosaurs with feathers as you like, it's not going to change the reality of the matter.
...

Feathers—A Marvel of Design (Awake!—2007)

...
“A Little Too Perfect”

Safe airplanes are the product of painstaking design, engineering, and craftsmanship. What about birds and feathers? In the absence of fossil evidence, controversy rages among evolutionists over how feathers originated. “Fundamentalist fervor,” “vitriolic name-calling,” and “paleontological passion” pervade the debate, states the magazine Science News. One evolutionary biologist, who organized a symposium on feather evolution, confessed: “I never dreamed that any scientific matter could possibly generate such bad personal behavior and such bitterness.” If feathers clearly evolved, why should discussions of the process become so vitriolic?

“Feathers are a little too perfect​—that’s the problem,” notes Yale University’s Manual of Ornithology—​Avian Structure and Function. Feathers give no indication that they ever needed improvement. In fact, the “earliest known fossil feather is so modern-looking as to be indistinguishable from the feathers of birds flying today.”* Yet, evolutionary theory teaches that feathers must be the result of gradual, cumulative change in earlier skin outgrowths. Moreover, “feathers could not have evolved without some plausible adaptive value in all of the intermediate steps,” says the Manual.

To put it simply, even in theory, evolution could not produce a feather unless each step in a long series of random, inheritable changes in feather structure significantly improved the animal’s chances for survival. Even many evolutionists find it a stretch of the imagination that something as complex and functionally perfect as a feather could arise in such a way.

Further, if feathers developed progressively over a long period of time, the fossil record should contain intermediate forms. But none have ever been found, only traces of fully formed feathers. “Unfortunately for evolutionary theory, feathers are very complicated,” states the Manual.

Avian Flight Demands More Than Feathers
...
[Footnote]

The fossil feather is from archaeopteryx, an extinct creature sometimes presented as a “missing link” in the line of descent to modern birds. Most paleontologists, however, no longer consider it an ancestor of modern birds.

[Box/​Picture on page 24]

FORGED “EVIDENCE”

Some fossil “evidence” that was once loudly hailed as proof that birds evolved from other creatures has since been shown to have been forged. In 1999, for instance, National Geographic magazine featured an article about a fossil of a feathered creature with a tail like a dinosaur’s. The magazine declared the creature to be “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” The fossil, however, turned out to be a forgery, a composite of the fossils of two different animals. In fact, no such “missing link” has ever been found.

Plenty of fantasies and stories about it though. And repetition of the same claim, confusing the point by talking about dinosaurs with feathers instead to bolster the evolutionary claim that connects dinosaurs to birds.

Seriously! The BS and damn right lies these bus bashers have been posting on here is absolutly ridiculous! Anything to keep there little fantasy of a guy in a white beard watching over us, who loves us all, but also condemns us to hell for not believing in him!

Absolutly ridiculous!

a reply to: carsforkids

My post had zero to do with evolution, it was to highlight the sheer absurdity of thinking ancient art proves humans coexisted with the things they depict in it but hey, if denying science makes you feel better about yourself, then more power to you.

There simply is no other way to explain it.

Please somebody else name the fallacy here. I'm tired of calling out this guy's blatant BS post after post after post. Evolution is the only known explanation for the diversity of life on earth LOL. There is simply no other way to explain diversity of life except evolution, yet you deny that, so you are a hypocrite.

And if science can't do that in a lab. Then it can't convince me it can happen in a hostile environment

If your standards for agreeing with hard testable science are that strict, then why do you have NO standards for believing in a god? Has God or creation ex-nihilo been demonstrated in a lab??? Nope, yet you believe that hook line sinker with no scrutiny and no evidence whatsoever. More hypocrisy.

Plus you demonstrate complete failure to understand research. Lab conditions PURPOSELY simulate hostile environments of early earth, DUMBASS. And many experiments have successfully shown parts of abiogenesis, but lets pretend they don't exist to support a delusion with zero evidence. That's logical.

. Teaching our kids this half baked crap and it's just a hoax. Made up and pushed by atheists who think it backs up what they hope is true.

Theist scientists also agree with evolution so your claim is a lie, yet again. It's literally all you do. LOL @ saying something is made up by atheists, but then have no problem buying into a religion completely made up by theists hoping it is true when it requires BLIND LOYALTY to ancient stories that can't even be verified. Why would anybody HOPE evolution is true? That's just what the science says, I'm sure most people would prefer the comforting explanation that a magical all powerful perfect being created humans in his image and we all get to live forever, but that explanation simply holds no credibility. My only hope is knowing as many true things as possible and evolution is one of them, regardless of your ignorant denial.

Nothing in existence supports your dismal boring ungrateful secularism.

Once again, comically ignorant. Do you even know what secularism is? It's separation of church and state. At least learn basic word meanings before spewing your non stop lies.

So you're the only lying here

Name a single lie that I posted. Go ahead. You accused me of this before, but then when it came time to back it up you had absolutely nothing. Funny how that works. Stop playing the victim, you dishonest POS.

www.talkorigins.org...

How many of these references have you refuted? Don't answer. It's ZERO. You've never even looked at the research yet you are dead set in believing it's wrong, based on ignorant creationist lies. By all means refute a single one or go get bent and spew your bs somewhere else. Nobody's buying it here, which is sad considering this is a CONSPIRACY THEORY website LOL. These folks are just mentally ill or too dumb to grasp how the scientific method works.

I think the drake equation is good science, analyzed something then tried to co.e up with a calculation of predictability. Cant fault him, or anyone trying to better understand the nature of things...

However, I also believe that a creator cant simply be ruled out. Considering all of life as we know it contains the same/similar building blocks, and seemingly pre programmed from the very beginning (dna), could that not also lend credence to a single creator?

I guess your world view will dictate what you are willing, or not willing to believe.

a reply to: Barcs

DUMBASS.

Ya know I think I might have rattled your cage. lol