The Drake Equation Fallacy

a reply to: cooperton

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.

So... there is no fallacy in said equation then...

life happened however it happened... perhaps God did it... but that doesn't need to be a factor in said equation...

And IF that intelligent life exists... what do you think the chances are they would be following your god?

originally posted by: Akragon

So... there is no fallacy in said equation then...

It presumes it's whole equation off the assumption that suns, planets, and so on form by super low probability events. This is a fallacy because it doesn't consider that an intelligent guiding force willed it into existence, which would astronomically improve the odds of life coming to be. If there is other life elsewhere it is no accident, it is because the intelligent faculty - the Logos - willed it to be

And IF that intelligent life exists... what do you think the chances are they would be following your god?

All life praises the Logos by its very nature. The only exception is the children of the Logos, which have a choice in the matter. All things act according to logical laws of the Logos and they cannot defy their ordinances. Humans can though. And defiance of the Logos is sin. You hate the Logos because your parents and community failed to properly articulate to you what the Logos is.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Akragon

So... there is no fallacy in said equation then...

It presumes it's whole equation off the assumption that suns, planets, and so on form by super low probability events. This is a fallacy because it doesn't consider that an intelligent guiding force willed it into existence, which would astronomically improve the odds of life coming to be. If there is other life elsewhere it is no accident, it is because the intelligent faculty - the Logos - willed it to be

And IF that intelligent life exists... what do you think the chances are they would be following your god?

All life praises the Logos. The only exception is the children of the Logos, which have a choice in the matter. All things act according to logical laws of the Logos and they cannot defy their ordinances. Humans can though. And defiance of the Logos is sin. You hate the Logos because your parents and community failed to properly articulate to you what the Logos is.

Let me as you this. Out of all the religons out there, how do you know yours is the right one. You talk about lack of evidence for a number of things, but what evidence do you have that your religon is the true religon, and not one of the others.

a reply to: cooperton

It presumes it's whole equation off the assumption that suns, planets, and so on form by super low probability events.

I don't see how it could be low probability... gravity is the only factor in creating such things...mass attracts mass, IF the mass is large enough it is compressed to the extreme... planets and stars form from the same events, and its everywhere in the universe...

All life praises the Logos. The only exception is the children of the Logos, which have a choice in the matter. All things act according to logical laws of the Logos and they cannot defy their ordinances. Humans can though. And defiance of the Logos is sin. You hate the Logos because your parents and community failed to properly articulate to you what the Logos is.

lol... no I educated myself on "the word" thanks... it had nothing to do with a failure of my parents or community... too much study resulted in truth... which is not your truth for various reasons...

One of which is the fact that the OT god is incompetent... but this is not the topic of the thread

Still waiting on someone to show me proof of life elsewhere in the universe other than Earth. It SHOULD be everywhere according to our speculative equations and yet it doesn’t exist. You might believe it’s out there but I don’t dwell in the realms of conjecture. Probability doesn’t match reality I’m afraid. In this case the math and observation are worlds apart.

Life beyond our planet is another fabrication of Science, it requires faith and belief in doctrine.

a reply to: Barcs

Actually many people have measured the Earth to be flat. Sure the experiments validity and method could be questioned however measurement is dependant on perception of the results and the method of experimentation.

Samuel Rowbotham would be the perfect example. He was not aware of atmospheric refraction so without it his experiments appeared to show a flat plane.

By no means do I think the Earth is flat however that’s not to say you can’t create a viable experiment which appears to show this is the case. Unless you know all the variables it’s impossible to be 100% sure of any results. Just like modern science, the true nature of reality is most probably far from what we believe to be true.

originally posted by: Akragon

I don't see how it could be low probability... gravity is the only factor in creating such things...mass attracts mass, IF the mass is large enough it is compressed to the extreme... planets and stars form from the same events, and its everywhere in the universe...

Gravity, therefore life-spawning planet in the goldi-locks zone of a solar system? The drake equation relies on the vastness of space and time to ameliorate the presupposed notion that these sorts of planets wouldn't occur very often. It's just a way for people to try to take an intelligent agency out of the equation of life. An unintelligent basis for creation is the far less likely reason for our existence. "Reason" meaning 'Logos'. It is far more likely, given the intelligence within us and around us, that we are the result of an intelligence.

Meaning behind the Drake equation.

"The Drake equation is a probabilistic argument used to estimate the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy."

Meaning behind the probabilistic..

"Based on or adapted to a theory of probability; subject to or involving chance variation."

Meaning behind probability.

"noun
the quality or state of being probable; the extent to which something is likely to happen or be the case.
"the rain will make the probability of a postponement even greater"
synonyms: likelihood, likeliness, prospect, expectation, chance, chances, odds, possibility
"the probability of higher mortgage rates"
a probable or the most probable event.
plural noun: probabilities
"for a time revolution was a strong probability"
synonyms: probable event, prospect, possibility, good/fair/reasonable bet
"relegation back to the Second Division looks like a distinct probability"

MATHEMATICS
the extent to which an event is likely to occur, measured by the ratio of the favourable cases to the whole number of cases possible.
"the area under the curve represents probability"

As per google.

Lets be reasonable here!!

a reply to: Skyfox81

Life should probably be everywhere, yet searching throughout the cosmos we have yet to find it ANYWHERE, except on Earth. A rather inconvenient fact.

originally posted by: carsforkids

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

Correct, you have one.

originally posted by: cooperton
It doesn't factor the possibility of an intelligent guiding force.

How is that relevant? Faith based beliefs are not factored into probability theories. Why would it be? That's like saying it doesn't factor in the possibility of warp speed space dragons cruising around the universe creating new galaxies and stars, or the possibility of the ever farting turtle that keeps making galaxies and universes.

Yeah, you don't factor in fantasies. We've already been over this. You are unable to progress in a conversation because you literally just state the presupposition, pretend it holds merit, ignore any and all refutations, then repeat the original presupposition. You don't have an honest bone in your body.

originally posted by: cooperton
Laws are only enacted by intelligent beings.

Laws in science are measurements of constants, but I've already told you this and you don't care because it conflicts with your silly narrative. Prove that any law of physics was enacted by intelligent being(s). Go ahead and prove something FOR ONCE instead of repeating lies over and over.

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.

How retarded is this guy? So if an intelligent designer exists, it means that all planets in the universe have life (100%)? Do you really not grasp the equation in the slightest? Pure dishonesty like always.

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).

You just go from fallacy to fallacy without a second thought. Stop equivocating laws in science to legal laws you dishonest POS.

originally posted by: Grenade
Still waiting on someone to show me proof of life elsewhere in the universe other than Earth. It SHOULD be everywhere according to our speculative equations and yet it doesn’t exist.

Why do you think it should be everywhere? How on earth did you factor such??? We aren't capable of visiting planets in other solar systems now. It's not something we can just figure out easily by observing distant planets. We are limited by our technology. We can understand what to look for in exo planets as far as having similar factors to earth, but without being there we can't tell if life exists, so it's a bit silly to jump to conclusions.

Life beyond our planet is another fabrication of Science, it requires faith and belief in doctrine.

It's not a fabrication. It's based on our observations here of what factors are necessary for life to emerge. Plus it's only a matter of time, they will find it somewhere, but the second they do, creationists will immediately move goalposts again so it doesn't matter.

Actually many people have measured the Earth to be flat.

Source the research right now please. Taking out a tape measure on a non level surface that represents .00000000001% of the surface area and pretending it represents the entire earth is LOLworthy.

Samuel Rowbotham would be the perfect example. He was not aware of atmospheric refraction so without it his experiments appeared to show a flat plane.

And thanks to science we found out he was ignorant and thus his experiment was wrong and thus he DIDN'T measure the earth to be flat. Appearance is irrelevant. We are size of nano bacteria compared to the earth.

By no means do I think the Earth is flat however that’s not to say you can’t create a viable experiment which appears to show this is the case.

The experiment is not viable if it uses flawed methods or faulty understandings of refraction.

a reply to: Barcs

We have no idea of the factors which allowed life to emerge, only theories. That's why we can't create it in a lab from a chemical soup. You're jumping to conclusions again, until we discover life elsewhere it is only speculative mathematics.

The rest of what you say i agree with, you don't need to be confrontational and argumentative ALL of the time.

Our current understanding of Physics could also be based on flawed experiment, until you introduce new variables then we can only use the data we have. Rowbothams method of experiment was scientifically and mathematically sound using what understanding was available at the time.

a reply to: Grenade

You are defending a flat earth theorist, is that really what you think is best?

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Barcs

We have no idea of the factors which allowed life to emerge, only theories. That's why we can't create it in a lab from a chemical soup. You're jumping to conclusions again, until we discover life elsewhere it is only speculative mathematics.

Why do you say we have no idea? Organic chemists definitely have a good idea, but you are straw manning it as a single sudden process where you mix chemicals in a lab and a fully formed cell pops out. Organic chemists state that abiogenesis (a group of hypotheses) is an incremental process that likely took millions of years, not a sudden spontaneous singular event. Many steps of this process have been demonstrated in a lab. So to say we know nothing is disingenuous. Yes, there is a lot we don't know, but it's viable and there is no better explanation based on experiment.

I'm more curious about your statement that life should be everywhere. How did you come up with that? I'm not trying to be confrontational, but when I see blatantly wrong statements based on pure speculation, I'm going to call them out.

Our current understanding of Physics could also be based on flawed experiment, until you introduce new variables then we can only use the data we have. Rowbothams method of experiment was scientifically and mathematically sound using what understanding was available at the time.

Again, that's speculative conjecture. "It could be wrong" doesn't mean it is. Science is a method where evidence accumulates, and the more you have the more probable something becomes. That's the great thing about it. When experiments are flawed, science figures it out.

The big problem here is that Rowbotham's experiment wasn't even peer reviewed, it barely qualified as an experiment or science. He was not a scientist, he was a medical doctor and Christian fundamentalist and his experiment was from the 1800s before we had the strict standards of peer review that we have now and when science was in its infancy compared to today.

Do you really think that after that experiment scientists all began jumping on the flat earth bandwagon? Of course not. The whole thing was a Christian fundamentalist scam and everyone in science knew it at the time. He was a crackpot and nobody thought his experiment was legit at the time it happened. It's one thing to say science can get things wrong, but it's completely different to credit THAT as a position of science when that was never the case.

a reply to: cooperton

It presumes it's whole equation off the assumption that suns, planets, and so on form by super low probability events. This is a fallacy because it doesn't consider that an intelligent guiding force willed it into existence, which would astronomically improve the odds of life coming to be. If there is other life elsewhere it is no accident, it is because the intelligent faculty - the Logos - willed it to be

And your suggestion would be considered a fallacy because it can't be falsified, which is something I like to call pretty convenient. In simple terms, no body, no case.

originally posted by: Skyfox81
a reply to: turbonium1

Sigh... again;

"Gravity is the descriptive label we put on the natural phenomena we see in nature, of objects of mass or energy being attracted to each other.

You have the 'Law' of gravity and then you have Einstein's General 'Theory' of Relativity."

This is testable!! Demonstrable!!

Lets be reasonable here.

I am being reasonable, and that's why I'm only looking at the evidence, instead of non-existent forces, which your side believes.

'Gravity' is a complete myth. Actual forces are provable, and CAN be tested and demonstrated in the real world.

Claiming objects with greater mass attract objects of lesser mass is the essence of your theory for 'gravity'.

The entire theory fails, when we know objects of greater mass NEVER attract objects of lesser mass, anywhere on Earth. That alone proves 'gravity' doesn't exist.

You know this doesn't work, do you not? That is, you know objects of greater mass do NOT attract objects of lesser mass, anywhere on Earth, right?

If so, then how can you possibly defend 'gravity' as an actual force?

a reply to: Barcs

Correct, you have one.

One what?

originally posted by: Barcs
Nobody has ever measure the earth as flat. Stop lying.

It's not a lie, it is absolute fact.

Airplanes fly level at altitude, and stay level, for hours at a time. They never adjust for a 'curvature' of Earth, because 'curvature' does not exist. Measuring level flight over Earth measures it as a flat surface, each and every flight.

You cannot fly level over a ball, or a sphere, for one thing. A sphere is NEVER a flat level surface, it is a curved surface.

How could a 757 at cruising speed, at cruising altitude, fly level for 6 hours over Earth, if Earth's surface was entirely curved, as a sphere? The plane would be 1400 feet higher than at first, if Earth was a sphere. But obviously, it is NOT any higher after 6 hours of flight. It is still at the same altitude after 6 hours, and that proves Earth is flat.

This can easily be demonstrated in real world tests, of course. If you take a sphere, and move an object above it, in a straight line, the object will always rise higher above the sphere, due to having a linear path, over a curved surface below it.

Simple as that, measurements prove Earth's surface is flat, not 'curved'.

You have to make up a fantasy 'force' within Earth that makes all level measurements be NOT level, at all, somehow, but nobody knows how, since nobody can prove there's a force within Earth, to begin with, let alone have some sort of magical powers, to boot!!

You argue there is no evidence, no proof, the Earth is flat, and when I show you measurements which prove it, beyond a shred of doubt, you simply whip out your omnipotent force - the instant solution to all your problems!

These are actual measurements, taken by actual instruments, during flights above Earth, by taking air pressure readings to measure for level flight.

If planes are not flying level, even though they are measuring it as level, which is scientific PROOF that they are flying level, there would be actual evidence to support it, but there is none at all.

originally posted by: Barcs
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.

When you automatically assume everything 'sticks' to the Earth, then you'd also think we would float above the Earth, into 'space', if nothing made us 'stick' to the Earth!...

In fact, we do NOT 'stick' to the Earth, and there is no need to have something make us 'stick' to Earth, either.

Earth is a controlled, contained environment, we all live within. Nothing else.

Birds and insects fly above Earth, they don't 'stick' to it, because nothing 'sticks' to it. Our mass and density are greater than air's mass and density, that's why we are on the surface of Earth, while birds have less mass and density, and with wings, they can fly in air. Simple as that.

originally posted by: cooperton

"Reason" meaning 'Logos'.

A little off-topic, but regarding the interpretation of the Greek word logos as "reason", and where it comes from:

The Apologists—Christian Defenders or Would-Be Philosophers?

...
“Christianity” Becomes a Philosophy

The philosopher Celsus mockingly described Christians as “labourers, shoemakers, farmers, the most uninformed and clownish of men.” This mockery was too much for the apologists to bear. They determined to win over public opinion by resorting to a new tactic. Once rejected, worldly wisdom was now used in the service of the “Christian” cause. Clement of Alexandria, for example, saw philosophy as “true theology.” Justin, though claiming to reject pagan philosophy, was the first to use philosophical language and concepts to express “Christian” ideas, considering this type of philosophy “to be safe and profitable.”

From this point on, the strategy was, not to oppose philosophy, but to make supposed Christian thought a philosophy higher than that of the pagans. “On some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honour, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching,” wrote Justin. Adorned with its new philosophical finery, “Christian” thought now claimed the dignity of old age. The apologists pointed out that Christian books were far older than those of the Greeks and that the prophets of the Bible lived earlier than Greek philosophers. Certain apologists even concluded that the philosophers copied from the prophets. Plato was made out to be a disciple of Moses!

Christianity Distorted

This new strategy led to a mixture of Christianity and pagan philosophy. Comparisons were made between Greek gods and Bible characters. Jesus was compared to Perseus; and Mary’s conception to that of Perseus’ mother, Danaë, who was said to be also a virgin.

Certain teachings were greatly modified. For example, in the Bible, Jesus is called “the Logos,” meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman. (John 1:1-3, 14-18; Revelation 19:11-13) Very early on, this teaching was distorted by Justin, who like a philosopher played on the two possible meanings of the Greek word logos: “word” and “reason.” Christians, he said, received the word in the person of Christ himself. However, logos in the sense of reason is found in every man, including pagans. Thus, he concluded, those who live in harmony with reason are Christians, even those who claimed or were thought to be atheists, like Socrates and others.

Moreover, by forcing the tie between Jesus and the logos of Greek philosophy, which was closely linked with the person of God, the apologists, including Tertullian, embarked on a course that eventually led Christianity to the Trinity dogma.* [For further information on Tertullian’s beliefs, see The Paradox of Tertullian.]
...
The Wrong Choice

Some apologists sensed the danger that philosophy could pose to the Christian faith. Yet, even though they criticized the philosophers, they still loved the intellectual approach of philosophy. Tatian, for example, denounced the philosophers for accomplishing nothing good but, at the same time, called the Christian religion “our philosophy” and indulged in philosophical speculations. Tertullian on the one hand decried the influence of pagan philosophy on Christian thinking. On the other hand, he stated that he wanted to follow in the steps of “Justin, philosopher and martyr; Miltiades, the sophist of the churches,” and others. Athenagoras called himself “a Christian philosopher of Athens.” As for Clement, it is said that he felt that “philosophy can be judiciously used by the Christian as an aid to wisdom and the defense of the faith.”

Whatever success these apologists might have had in defending their faith, they had nonetheless committed a serious error in their defense. How so? The apostle Paul reminded Christians that among the spiritual weapons at their disposal, none is more potent than “the word of God,” which “is alive and exerts power.” With it, Paul said, “we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God.”​—Hebrews 4:12; 2 Corinthians 10:4, 5; Ephesians 6:17.

On the night before he was killed, Jesus told his disciples: “Take courage! I have conquered the world.” (John 16:33) The trials and tribulations that he experienced in the world had not overcome his faith and his loyalty to his Father. Similarly, the last surviving apostle, John, wrote: “This is the conquest that has conquered the world, our faith.” (1 John 5:4) Although the apologists wanted to defend the Christian faith, they made the wrong choice in adopting the ideas and the approach of worldly philosophy. In so doing, the apologists allowed themselves to be seduced by such philosophies and, in effect, allowed the world to conquer them and their brand of Christianity. So rather than being champions and defenders of true Christian faith, the apologists of the early church, perhaps unwittingly, fell into the trap set by Satan, who “keeps transforming himself into an angel of light.”​—2 Corinthians 11:14.

The clergy and theologians of the churches today have largely followed in the same path. Instead of defending true Christianity by using God’s Word, they often downgrade the Bible and resort to worldly philosophy in their teaching in an effort to win over public opinion and the establishment. Rather than sounding a warning against the dangers of following the unscriptural trends of the world, they have become teachers who do their best to ‘tickle the ears’ of their listeners in order to win adherents. (2 Timothy 4:3) Sadly, as did the early apologists, these teachers have ignored the apostolic warning: “Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.” And we are reminded that “their end shall be according to their works.”​—Colossians 2:8; 2 Corinthians 11:15.