The Drake Equation Fallacy

a reply to: carsforkids

What is "obvious" is:

1. Obvious that we cant be alone in this vast universe.

2. Obviously God or creator is non existent.

These are, if not true, then obvious assumptions.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: carsforkids

What is "obvious" is:

1. Obvious that we cant be alone in this vast universe.

2. Obviously God or creator is non existent.

These are, if not true, then obvious assumptions.

I can see why you would keep it so simple.
I do think you're right that we can't be alone in the universe.
As long as you get to dictate to everyone else who what and where
we are accompanied by for and to. Of course you have all the say. lol

a reply to: carsforkids

I'm using your lingo...you said "obvious".

If we need to state what is most obvious about God...it is a fact that he's not around.

If he is around, than he's a raving lunatic who created all this infinite empty space, for no apparent reason other than to make the night sky awesome.

The choice of obviousness is always yours.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

If we need to state what is most obvious about God...it is a fact that he's not around.

Neither are people from other planets!

See how that correlates? Yaaaa!

a reply to: carsforkids

It is reasonable to assume one, and not the other.

So, I'm guessing you believe the Earth is flat ?

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

It is reasonable to assume one, and not the other.

Only if you say so.

a reply to: carsforkids

One is assumed based on real tangible and tested knowledge (for instance, we know that human-like beings need water, light, an atmosphere..among other things); therefore a planet that has these things is potentially habitable by a species similar to our own, the other is assumed on the basis of blind faith which can not be tested or verified and requires abandonment of common sense.

Yes..one is reasonable, the other is devoid of reasoning.

originally posted by: carsforkids
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?

"The heavens........ And the Earth." The Earth happened later after the "heavens" 3 days in those terms doesn't mean 3 "earth" days.

The Earth is far newer than many other planets in other solar systems with much older galaxies. A few billion years newer perhaps. Definitely many millions of years younger.

And none of that conflicts with anything except human beings erroneous interpretations of things and the nature of man to misunderstand.

PS The Drake thing is just someone attempting to "Darwinize" the cosmos so they believe they have an excuse when they get to the next life.

Here I thought this would be a thread with an intelligent discussion of the deficiencies of the Drake Equation, which, by the way only concerns the Milky Way and possibly "communicating" sentient civilizations in our current time sync, and it's just some dimwit moanings about supreme beings, lacking science and even basic understanding of the DE.

It's very limited, as there are many, many more relevant terms. It can not be applied to the whole Universe, just the 50 or so galaxies in our Local Group which are gravitationally bound, and says NOTHING about any sentient beings coming here and flying around in the atmosphere while pretending to hide (badly).

a reply to: Maverick7

Here I thought this would be a thread with an intelligent discussion

Positive thinking is a must these days

a reply to: carsforkids

The equation is perfect. The problem is there are no values to use. You basically have to just make numbers up. You can explain why you think our numbers are reasonable, but it says more about what you want to be true than what is true.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
1. Obvious that we cant be alone in this vast universe.
[...]
These are, if not true, then obvious assumptions.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that we might be alone in the universe. It's okay if it turns out that we're not, however since as of today we have not even the tiniest bit of incontrovertible evidence that there is other life out there, we can't reasonably assume that there is. Maybe. But not for sure.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: carsforkids

One is assumed based on real tangible and tested knowledge (for instance, we know that human-like beings need water, light, an atmosphere..among other things); therefore a planet that has these things is potentially habitable by a species similar to our own, the other is assumed on the basis of blind faith which can not be tested or verified and requires abandonment of common sense.

Yes..one is reasonable, the other is devoid of reasoning.

Based on knowledge with no knowledge of what we don't know. You believe
absence of evidence is evidence of non existence. Accept for when you personally
declare it not to be. Nothing is devoid of reasoning and in no way is reasoning a
valid argument.

a reply to: carsforkids

Oh is there. Go list the "scientific" evidence for Jesus Christ. I dare you to show how its scientific. I'm a scientist so I am sure I can catch up. No where have I mentioned aliens crashing here either. I mentioned multiple deites, or are you unaware what polytheism is?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

"The heavens........ And the Earth." The Earth happened later after the "heavens" 3 days in those terms doesn't mean 3 "earth" days.

When we engage in topics like this I believe it is best to keep in mind
we are talking about a God. In this case the Christian God, the God of
Israel etc. So concerning verses from the Bible it is illogical to apply
human reasoning or science to doubt what the scripture is telling us God
(who created the Heavens and the earth) did. If the Bible declares God
spoke all of creation into existence then it is reasonable to assume 3
days means 3 days. Despite the vastness of our own pitiful knowledge.

a reply to: Noinden

I mentioned multiple deites, or are you unaware what polytheism is?

I am completely unaware and can't even figure it out in your
sentence. Why would a scientist with your superior knowledge
use a grammar school line like " I dare you" ? WTF?

originally posted by: carsforkids
If the Bible declares God
spoke all of creation into existence then it is reasonable to assume 3
days means 3 days. Despite the vastness of our own pitiful knowledge.

Who wrote the bible?

a reply to: neformore

Who wrote the bible?

66 books 40 different authors over a span of about fifteen hundred
years I do believe. Some were preachers, goat herders, fisherman
even kings. Men from all walks of life and always inspired by " The
Holy Spirit". And the result is the best selling book of all time that
presents the reader a perfect cohesive tapestry from cover to cover.
It's a beautiful love story with an arch villain and a the most magnificent
idea of a hero I have ever read about. Ancient literature that has no
comparison any where on earth.

Fascinating if you ask me.

Why? Did you have some big bombastic point to reveal? Something to
do with the topic hopefully?

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Maverick7

Here I thought this would be a thread with an intelligent discussion

Positive thinking is a must these days

Says the poster who conflates 'not being alone in the Universe' with anything.

There's one microbe on Saturn's moon Titan. Are we, thus, "not alone" in the Universe?

There's one other sentient civilization of intelligent octopi-like creatures 9 billion LY distant. Are we 'not alone' in the Universe?

So what?

We would need to detect life of some kind on at least one other planet before his equation could hold any weight.

Not sure i buy the whole supreme being argument tho, just as flawed if you are basing it on evidence.