The Drake Equation Fallacy

originally posted by: turbonium1
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!

The blue sky is made of various gases which are scattering light from the sun. It would only block the moon if it was a physical, non-transparent, solid barrier.

Sorry to pee in your cornflakes but you're not thinking this through.

I mean anything is possible but you can see through gas and scattered light so the scientific concept of seeing the moon in daylight is perfectly reasonable.

If the moon is reflecting more light than the atmosphere then it would be brighter in the sky. Same goes with Venus which you can regularly see near the horizon due to it's apparent magnitude.

The moon is not blocking out the Sky, it is shining through our atmosphere at a higher luminosity than the light scattering through atmospheric refraction. If you blow smoke in front of a flashlight does it stop all light passing through?

I can see sometimes why science get's so frustrated with the concept of creation. Literal interpretation of biblical scripture really does fly in the face of observation.

I'm going to change my theology, i wish to be called a scientific creationist. Religious Zealots give those of us with true belief in creation a bad name.

a reply to: Jay-morris

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!

You are the psychopath. You can't even have a conversation without proving
it.

You guys need to stop feeding this troll

a reply to: carsforkids


I don't think he's the sharpest tool in the box. Probably quite young but it's a stretch to insinuate he's a psychopath.

Confrontational, angry, arrogant and annoying i'll give you that.

a reply to: Grenade

Yes I know but he stretched first.

originally posted by: Barcs

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.

Computer science is heavily based on physics and physics is heavily reliant on computer science. You know its called ELECTRONics.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: carsforkids


I don't think he's the sharpest tool in the box. Probably quite young but it's a stretch to insinuate he's a psychopath.

Confrontational, angry, arrogant and annoying i'll give you that.

I think you just described yourself perfectly there.

I have always found it fascinating that the older the "manuscript, document, carving, etc." is...the more factual history is bestowed upon it....in other words, early man could never be bragging, or simply telling a fable to entertain....or....maybe a person of "wealth of that time" paid a writer or artist to be creative with the myths, as well as the workings and musings of daily life.

a reply to: jimmyx

I have always found it fascinating that the older the "manuscript, document, carving, etc." is...the more factual history is bestowed upon it....in other words, early man could never be bragging, or simply telling a fable to entertain....or....maybe a person of "wealth of that time" paid a writer or artist to be creative with the myths, as well as the workings and musings of daily life.

Well now that's just naive. You really should educate yourself on Bible
history.

40 authors wrote the Bible over a period of 1,500 years. These Bible writers wrote as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit (see 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

source

How would someone pay 40 authors on three different continents over
fifteen hundred years for sixty six books written three different
languages that together form a cohesive message about the Creator's
plan for us?

You don't even understand the miracle of us even having the text.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Says the guy who followed me into this thread just to have a dig.




Nice to see you, anything to add to the conversation or just here for an argument?

a reply to: Grenade

Followed you into this thread?!!!
Do get over yourself.
Anyways this thread has descended into a slanging match between you and another poster so your comment about being here for an argument is rather ironic.
That's you, that is!

🍺

a reply to: Jay-morris

J. Robert Oppenheimer remarked after witnessing the Trinity atomic bomb test "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds".

This is a quote from a religious text Bhagavad Gita.

In the blink of an eye his invention killed around 200,000 Japanese civilians. You see science will give us the power that was once reserved for the mythological gods.

Who is more dangerous, someone who believes in god and worships them or someone who craves for their power and will kill to attain it?

I'd say more than a few of our leading scientists could be described as psychopathic and far more of a danger than religious scripture.

Science allows for the exponential growth of technology and with that comes great responsibility, something i don't think we are ready for. Especially when you start attempting to access other dimensions, parallel universes, anti-matter and other exotic forms of research. They could and probably will end us all.

a reply to: oldcarpy

You joined the thread, insulted me, offered no opinion on the subject.

Your first post was to reference me directly.

Hypocrite.

I have provided many opinions regarding the science of the drake equation and the theme of theology when i joined.

So how about you mind your own business or do i have to expect you in every thread i join, contributing nothing but insults?

a reply to: oldcarpy

Followed you into this thread?!!!
Do get over yourself.
Anyways this thread has descended into a slanging match between you and another poster so your comment about being here for an argument is rather ironic.
That's you, that is!

Holy shlt what a crock? You come in to this thread and accuse the one person
who hasn't been guilty of "Slanging" ? As an excuse to just
grudgingly show your candy ass in here and bash another member? Wow
congratulations you're a psychopath to then I guess. lol

a reply to: carsforkids

Don't worry pal, i questioned his all knowing self in another thread and he's been fizzing ever since.

The best option is just to ignore him, he goes away eventually.

Although i do find it fun pushing his buttons. He especially hates references and facts, their a real inconvenience to his arguments.

a reply to: Grenade

He won't last long around here anyway do'n that. I think it's
only this thread the mods have chose to ignore for what
ever reason.

a reply to: carsforkids

I'm a big boy pal, i don't need mods to defend me. Against folk like oldcarpy you can use superior intellect. (Wound him up now watch him go)

a reply to: Grenade

Good grief
Superior intellect?
Do get over yourself.
And good day to you.
And your little buddy.

a reply to: carsforkids

To be fair i shouldn't have insulted Jay-morris, was just tired of him calling other people stupid with childish insults.

It was actually an attempt to defend him from the psychopath moniker with a little bit of satire added in.

I don't even mind insults if you at least interject something of relevance to the thread.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Grenade

He won't last long around here anyway do'n that. I think it's
only this thread the mods have chose to ignore for what
ever reason.

And how long exactly have you been on here for?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grenade

Good grief
Superior intellect?
Do get over yourself.
And good day to you.
And your little buddy.

Bye, thanks for the insights into the drake equation and theology. You really moved this thread forward.