The Drake Equation Fallacy

originally posted by: Jay-morris


Hubble used ultraviolet and visible light (UVIS) and the other for near infrared (NIR). Both process images differently, but rezults are pretty much the same in fact that we can see these galaxies, without question. So i really do not know what your point is.

The fact is we know billions of galaxies are out there. Alot of them way older than ours.

We know hubs of light exist out there. That's all. I say this in all seriousness - I'd like to see evidence that these are actually other suns with observable and tangible planets orbiting around them like our own solar system. I want to see the observable evidence that shows this is the case.

a reply to: Jay-morris

These are all forms of electromagnetic radiation in the form of photons at differing wavelengths.

You are delving into a realm of physics which I am extremely familiar with.

My previous post holds true.

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

These are all forms of electromagnetic radiation in the form of photons at differing wavelengths.

You are delving into a realm of physics which I am extremely familiar with.

My previous post holds true.

Then you would not that the galaxies we have studied are true representations of the galaxies we know about, that is not in question, and you knowing about physics will know that.

a reply to: Jay-morris

This post makes no sense at all. The only evidence we have for them is electromagnetic radiation. By true representation I don’t know what you mean. We haven’t been there to confirm our observations. We haven’t even been to Proxima Centauri never mind another Galaxy.

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

This post makes no sense at all. The only evidence we have for them is electromagnetic radiation. By true representation I don’t know what you mean. We haven’t been there to confirm our observations. We haven’t even been to Proxima Centauri never mind another Galaxy.

Ok, it does not make sense to you. A very easy way to explain to you is this way. Why do we know for certain that these galaxies exist? Why are we not saying things like " we think these may be galaxies" ? Its quite simple really!

We know, we do not only think there are galaxies out there.

a reply to: Jay-morris

It appears you know everything already.

You should write a book about your grand theory.

And “we” don’t know anything. That would imply I agree with you.

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

It appears you know everything already.

You should write a book about your grand theory.

And “we” don’t know anything. That would imply I agree with you.

When did i say i know everything? All hoi have go fo is use common sense! Its not hard!

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Barcs

Yeah because truck drivers are authorities on logic and reason.

Well I never claimed to be an authority on anything. Not even
truck driving. I simply do my best and try not to be an ass about
anything. Unless someone is an ass from the beginning.

Name the fallacy:

The Drake equation fallacy

Not a fallacy, sorry.

EPIC FAIL.

originally posted by: cooperton
It's a fallacy of presumption. The Drake equation is presuming the universe was created without an intelligent force to guide creation.

FALSE. It doesn't assume anything about that. YOU DO. The fallacy of presumption is falsely linking 2 things together.

IE.

-Women earn less than men earn for doing the same work.
-Oprah Winfrey is a woman.
-Therefore, Oprah Winfrey earns less than male talk-show hosts.

LOL @ making up your own defintions of fallacies. Yet another epic fail by the peanut gallery.

The fact that there are any Laws of logic whatsoever reinforces the idea that the universe involves intelligence.

False. Do you have anything except lies?

originally posted by: turbonium1
A magical force within the Earth, where level means NOT level, because the magical force makes it so!

Nothing magical about space-time bending. It only sounds like magic because you are ignorant. Chemistry and genetics is magic to people like you.

Level means level, it is not imaginary forces making level mean not level, or level to a humongous ball, just because you say that it does....

The ocean isn't level, dumbass. It's constantly moving.

Level is always level, it is nothing else, but level.

I never thought of that. You are brilliant, my friend. Level is always level, therefor the earth is flat and water can't flow or bend LMFAO!!!

Measuring Earth as flat with airplane instruments is indisputable PROOF.

Nobody has ever measure the earth as flat. Stop lying.

A magical non-existent force never even proven to EXIST, then magically makes level mean not level, because it wants level to mean level to the Earth's curved surface, even if nobody realizes it, when measuring for level!

You have a better explanation for why objects stick to the earth and fall at the same rate? Break it down. What is your testable alternative that explains why we can't jump into space. GO.

Fantasy argument.

You defined your argument perfectly!

Just when you think it can't get any stupider than young earth creationism, you have flat earthers. Jesus Christ....

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Jay-morris

Sorry, but when somrone denies there are other galaxies out there, then its not an unfair generalisation!

If he is stupid enough to say there is no evidence of other galaxies, then i will debate that!

Have you ever been to another galaxy to prove they are what you think they are? Or do you base it off belief?

Have you ever used a telescope???? Will the non stop ignorance EVER stop? I doubt it. This is mental illness folks. I just hope this guy gets help before he offs himself or somebody else.

We know hubs of light exist out there. That's all. I say this in all seriousness - I'd like to see evidence that these are actually other suns with observable and tangible planets orbiting around them like our own solar system. I want to see the observable evidence that shows this is the case.

Baaaaahahahaahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Barcs

Yeah because truck drivers are authorities on logic and reason.

Well I never claimed to be an authority on anything. Not even
truck driving. I simply do my best and try not to be an ass about
anything. Unless someone is an ass from the beginning.

Name the fallacy:

The Drake equation fallacy

Not a fallacy, sorry.

EPIC FAIL.

God complex! lol

originally posted by: Barcs

FALSE. It doesn't assume anything about that. YOU DO. The fallacy of presumption is falsely linking 2 things together.

It doesn't factor the possibility of an intelligent guiding force. It presumes there is no intelligence involved, which vastly sways the whole probability of the equation. It's like you are literally incapable of considering, or even comprehending, anything beyond your tiny ironclad box

originally posted by: carsforkids

God complex! lol

Yeah he's mad. Seeing his crass insults to others is so disheartening for the hope of humankind. Luckily his type of mentality is dying off though. It can only exist behind the curtains of internet anonymity, because in real life if he behaved such a way he would be totally ostracized... It's like he's stuck in the post-maturity confused rebellious stage of life and can't get out. I checked, he's been on this forum for 15 years so he's not as young as his posts make him seem.

a reply to: cooperton

why would they need to factor in an intelligent being guiding anything in said equation?

and

Do you believe it would change the result in some way?

perhaps you're insinuating that this is the only place in the entire universe with life?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: cooperton

why would they need to factor in an intelligent being guiding anything in said equation?

Thank you for following the conversation. Barcs almost hits a nerve every time he starts barking. Loud dogs suck.

But anyway... the reason it is a presumption fallacy is because it presumes there is no intelligence. This is especially unlikely given all the very particular mathematically predictable laws of physics. Laws are only enacted by intelligent beings.

Do you believe it would change the result in some way?

Most definitely. If an intelligent force is involved, especially one with capabilities beyond our comprehension, then the likelihood gets closer to 100%, rather than almost 0% as with the Drake equation. Given that we ourselves are intelligent beings, it strongly insists we come from a similar type of intellectual Being.

a reply to: cooperton

Why did you completly ignore Barcs points? Its all well and good you calling it fantasy, but it's not good when you completly ignore his answer to you.

Ok, I have a question for you. What religon do you follow?

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

Why did you completly ignore Barcs points? Its all well and good you calling it fantasy, but it's not good when you completly ignore his answer to you.

Ok, I have a question for you. What religon do you follow?

What points? He just said false in all caps... and then said the Drake equation doesn't assume there is no intelligence, but that's absurd because it is basing it's entire calculation on the premise that life had to have come to be by randomness [i.e. the presupposed random generation of stars, planets, inhabiting a goldi-locks zones and so on]. Once intelligence gets factored into the equation it makes a huge difference... Like the difference between a Ford truck being made at a ford factory, compared to a ford truck being made by a hurricane going through an iron mine.

To explain the analogy, if an intelligent thing wills something into existence, it is far, far, far more likely for it to come to be compared to random interactions making that same thing by accident. That is the fallacy of the Drake Equation - it fallaciously presumes there is no intelligence involved in creating life.

a reply to: cooperton

the reason it is a presumption fallacy is because it presumes there is no intelligence. This is especially unlikely given all the very particular mathematically predictable laws of physics. Laws are only enacted by intelligent beings.

we make said laws though... intelligence isn't needed in the equation... the only factor is that the universe is beyond our ability to imagine in size... due to that fact, its almost impossible that life only exists here... and once we actually find life elsewhere, regardless of if it is long extinct... fossilized or whatever... it will be a fact that life is all throughout the universe... just impossible for us to get to as it stands

Most definitely. If an intelligent force is involved, especially one with capabilities beyond our comprehension, then the likelihood gets closer to 100%, rather than almost 0% as with the Drake equation. Given that we ourselves are intelligent beings, it strongly insists we come from a similar type of intellectual Being.

Do you seriously believe this little blue speck of dust is the ONLY place in all of the universe with life?

originally posted by: cooperton

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

Why did you completly ignore Barcs points? Its all well and good you calling it fantasy, but it's not good when you completly ignore his answer to you.

Ok, I have a question for you. What religon do you follow?

What points? He just said false in all caps... and then said the Drake equation doesn't assume there is no intelligence, but that's absurd because it is basing it's entire calculation on the premise that life had to have come to be by randomness [i.e. the presupposed random generation of stars, planets, inhabiting a goldi-locks zones and so on]. Once intelligence gets factored into the equation it makes a huge difference... Like the difference between a Ford truck being made at a ford factory, compared to a ford truck being made by a hurricane going through an iron mine.

To explain the analogy, if an intelligent thing wills something into existence, it is far, far, far more likely for it to come to be compared to random interactions making that same thing by accident. That is the fallacy of the Drake Equation - it fallaciously presumes there is no intelligence involved in creating life.

He countered your arguments with valid points, which you ignored.

You did not answer my question. What religon do you follow?

originally posted by: Akragon

we make said laws though... intelligence isn't needed in the equation...

What laws do we make? Thermodynamics, electromagnetism, and so on exists whether we describe it or not. We make judiciary laws, civil laws, and so on, which are all enacted by intelligent beings (us).

the only factor is that the universe is beyond our ability to imagine in size... due to that fact, its almost impossible that life only exists here...

I'm not ruling that out of possibility by any means. I totally think there is life beyond our human-centric existent. My belief is that may not necessarily be a physical type of sentient life, but rather different forms of life that we may not even be able to recognize.

originally posted by: Jay-morris

He countered your arguments with valid points, which you ignored.

What valid points? Where he said I need to get help and called me a liar? He doesn't deserve a response to that childsplay. His only actual point he attempted to make was that the drake equation doesn't presume anything. Which I responded to in my post:

"(The Drake Equation) doesn't factor the possibility of an intelligent guiding force. It presumes there is no intelligence involved, which vastly sways the whole probability of the equation."