The Drake Equation Fallacy

a reply to: neformore

Also - haven't you been around for the same (I'll give you the benefit and say probably less) time as me? If so, why do you think your knowledge is more superior?

If I think it all it isn't that my knowledge is superior but thanks for the laugh.

I do however fail to see the drake equation as anything close to knowledge or
thinking. At best it is nothing more than sci fi fantasy speculation that disregards
the obvious lack of data and the fact that time and space are related. A fact I
should also mention is not left out of scripture.

a reply to: carsforkids
I'm curious as to why you didn't just put this in a rant. You obviously wanted an echo chamber instead of a discussion. Nefermore and others have given you clear and concise answers to your inquiries. Answers you have no refutation for, nor can you give any tangible evidence for your own position.

The Rant Forum would have served you better.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: carsforkids
I'm curious as to why you didn't just put this in a rant. You obviously wanted an echo chamber instead of a discussion. Nefermore and others have given you clear and concise answers to your inquiries. Answers you have no refutation for, nor can you give any tangible evidence for your own position.

The Rant Forum would have served you better.

I'm not sure I made any inquiries. I think member Blueshift articulated my point
far better than my use of an "unscientific" Creator ever could. I haven't seen anything
that refutes the fallacy I pointed out. Can you show me how belief in life on other
planets is more factual and scientific than my belief in a Creator? And what my
belief is has nothing to do with religion. I have no indoctrination and belong to no
religion. I never needed religion to discern what makes the most sense to me.
Where am I wrong about the equation?

And I'll be sure and check with you next time to help me choose a forum. If
that's what the rest of ATS does.

originally posted by: Mach2
There is nothing "scientific" about religion. That's why it is called faith.

There is nothing "scientific" about science. We do NOT live in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism even though people of the scientific faith think we do.

a reply to: carsforkids

Let's review the power scripture:

No. 1:St Paul’s advice about whether women are allowed to teach men in church:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

No. 2: In this verse, Samuel, one of the early leaders of Israel, orders genocide against a neighbouring people:

“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

No. 3: A command of Moses:

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)

No. 4: The ending of Psalm 137, a psalm which was made into a disco calypso hit by Boney M, is often omitted from readings in church:

“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)

No. 5: Another blood-curdling tale from the Book of Judges, where an Israelite man is trapped in a house by a hostile crowd, and sends out his concubine to placate them:

“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)

No. 6: St Paul condemns homosexuality in the opening chapter of the Book of Romans:

“In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:27)

No. 7: In this story from the Book of Judges, an Israelite leader, Jephthah, makes a rash vow to God, which has to be carried out:

“And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt-offering.’ Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, ‘Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.’” (Judges 11:30-1, 34-5)

No. 8: The Lord is speaking to Abraham in this story where God commands him to sacrifice his son:

‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)

No. 9: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

No. 10: “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

The Bible was written by men the same way all sentences use words. The Bible is no closer to understanding God than you pretending to be speaking for God.

I find your faith to be very weak. Why would you ever care what people who cherish science think about the Universe. You should stick to your prayers. Obviously, your prayers are not enough for you. The japanese have a saying, "The first person to raise their voice in an argument loses." Well, if faith in a supreme being is your answer, and if you hold the words of the Bible in the highest esteem like little idols to worship, then it's best to remain silent. Because anything you say at all makes you look weak.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Because anything you say at all makes you look weak.

I'm sorry if my thread upset you and made you lash out quoting scripture and
going off topic to describe your perception of myself. Anything else?

In truth the Drake equation is utterly useless because the exact parameters
of the involved variables is not and can not even be known.

a reply to: carsforkids
Nah brah! The earth is flatish, space is a hoax perpetuated by the IRS to keep you paying taxes, and when humans go extinct some few thousand or so years from now.

That is all that will have existed in this existence and anywhere and everywhere, and that is all.... The End. To this story called life. As all existence will cease to exist once human kind goes extinct some time from now.

And oh! There is no god, that is just something that primitive peoples created so they can sack the other primitive peoples huts and mud and brick houses and not feel guilty about it. That was the sole point in creating a God to begin with. Gods and worship were kind of like the political parties of there day.

Man created god, not the other way around. Because its all magical, and any dumbass can make some shintz up that some other dumbasses will believe.

And that is the story of mankind for the past 20,000 years. Any more questions?

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: neformore

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field image covers a spot covering less than one-tenth of one-millionth of the sky. There are about 10,000 galaxies in the image. If there is only one civilisation per galaxy, in that extremely small area of sky there could be 10,000 civilisations that are there. Likely they would never see each other, or communicate with each other, but its still a huge number.

Are you presenting pure speculation as fact? Seriously? Speculation that knows
nothing of the timeline or even considers the possibility that this might be the
first planet in the universe where sentient life forms did arise?

Despite what you choose to believe about it's origins? And then you still
want to turn and say what I believe is unscientific and ridiculous?

lol You can't have it both ways because I won't let you. Sorry I won't!

Lol, rants against speculation then proceeds to speculate in the very next sentence!
Having a rational, receptive conversation with anyone that can stubbornly twist anything to support their stated position and ignore anything that doesn't is an exercise in futility.

a reply to: Osirisvset

Lol, rants against speculation then proceeds to speculate in the very next sentence!
Having a rational, receptive conversation with anyone that can stubbornly twist anything to support their stated position and ignore anything that doesn't is an exercise in futility.

I'm under the impression you aren't aware that speculation and conjecture
is all this conversation is about. A speculation often sited to legitimize an
alternate belief in space gods scientifically. But in no way does it resemble
science at all. So how am I the one twisting what has already been twisted?

Care to offer anything meaningful, unlike your preemptive excuse not to
participate?

a reply to: carsforkids

oh FFS hear we go again .

there is nothing wrong with drakes equation

any one who says there is - please coherently explain why you set any variable in it to ZERO

because thats the only way it does fail

and NO " because of your imaginary friend " is not a coherent reason

a reply to: carsforkids

And far more evidence of a supreme being giving us information

You mean...The Bible ?

Yeah...there is that info.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

And oh! There is no god,

Some great information there boy! From someone who I can
tell knows what they're talking about just like a parrot.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: carsforkids

oh FFS hear we go again .

there is nothing wrong with drakes equation

any one who says there is - please coherently explain why you set any variable in it to ZERO

because thats the only way it does fail

and NO " because of your imaginary friend " is not a coherent reason

What is the exact value of any one of them? If you'll be so kind?

originally posted by: carsforkids

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: carsforkids

oh FFS hear we go again .

there is nothing wrong with drakes equation

any one who says there is - please coherently explain why you set any variable in it to ZERO

because thats the only way it does fail

and NO " because of your imaginary friend " is not a coherent reason

What is the exact value of any one of them? If you'll be so kind?

What we can empirically observe already assures us it's not zero...

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

What we can empirically observe already assures us it's not zero...

Any examples? How many planets have been proven habitable?

I can tell you!

One and exclude the one we live on and the answer is zero.

a reply to: carsforkids

your question demonstrates that you have zero clue of what the drake equation is or why it was conceved and how it should be applied

its almost like you are parroting religious ideology - quite ironic really - as you have already accused another member of being a parrot

my answer is - i dont know . with the critical caveat - the DE is NOT meant to provide an actual answer

its not a tool to generate a mathematical answer

to quote wikipedias primer on the topic :

not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations, but as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue

which returs us to my origional argument :

why would you set any variable to zero ?

that is the point of the DE

a reply to: carsforkids

proven habitable ?

how many "creators" are proven to exist ?

The Drake equation to me just means an idea that provokes more study and consideration.

Another thing that really helps me is to take all main stream space sciences celebrities you see spouting their multitudes of speculation with a huge grain of salt because they ignore other mountains of information and deny plenty of realities themselves.

Through the relatively recent decades there have been hundreds of thousands of reports of "visitors" coming here in many thousands of different shapes and sizes and creatures of many varied appearances and physical effects on witnesses. Most times the effects are detrimental to the witnesses with life long physical ailments to their body and minds.

Far more rare are healing effects on some witnesses, but they have been documented and also denied at the same time.

Except for all the main stream denials by those poor folks who never witnessed these things themselves, you could conclude that the Drake equation to some degree has already been proven as FACT, but you will never see many main stream scientists acknowledging that one even though it's already hammered them in the head with proverbial bricks for years. Because they didn't get to witness any of those visitations themselves or suffer any of the effects like the thousands who HAVE. Creation concepts in no way contradicts any of it.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: carsforkids

proven habitable ?

how many "creators" are proven to exist ?

Yes proven habitable did you need me to explain it?

And you don't need to prove the obvious! There you go, I answered just so
you'll have something to do.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Well that's a great response. Thanks for not getting all hung up on my use
of creation to show how the equation ignores entirely the chronology of
the universe in relation to the equation. Simply put the equation falls
completely apart if the earth is the first planet to ever harbor life any
where in the universe. If the beginning of life in the universe is here?
We couldn't possibly know it. No matter what ones preference is we
(mankind) have been given information from long ago that tell us
just that. The first three words of genesis.

What the hell is so hard to understand about that?