The Drake Equation Fallacy

originally posted by: Grenade
You really believe that the government doesn't have any secrets.

Of course they do, they just cannot keep them for very long at all as has been shown to you repeatedly in this thread.

originally posted by: Grenade
From everyone, no, certainly not, there were leaks, i totally agree.

How could not? There were well over a thousand, not including a network of spies, therefore, no secret.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

How would you know?

If they did have secrets that have been kept we wouldn’t know about them. Kind of a paradox to suggest I provide you with an example of a secret, that’s pure stupidity. We know secrets exist because some have been exposed.

What a joke of a debate.

You going to contribute anything on topic or just here to hijack it over definitions and pointless nonsense?

a reply to: Grenade

oh dear

could you please explain what the point of this entire tangent is ?

no i is not taking the piss

but - to compare the manhatten project to the claims of flat earth proponents - is simply assanine

yes - governments keep secrets

no one disputes that

but to compare the efforts of one nation to create one weapon over a 6 year period - to a global scientific concencus thats spanned 2000 years - is beyond absurd

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I know bizarre.

Its like me talking about The Drake Equation and the person im talking to says;

"Yeah but Star Wars has light sabers.!!"

Im mean WTF!! Stay on track.

You may as well respond with....

"Yeah, well, when Chuck Norris attends a feminist rally, he comes home with his shirt ironed!!"

Thats a better tap dance direction.

a reply to: carsforkids

Apologies, i missed your reply.

If there is no evidence that I exist do I cease to exist?

This is unreasonable, what reason do you have to think this???

I don't understand how atheism can claim that belief in God is so preposterous.
When it can't come close to offering up a a more sensible explanation for existence.
Not even science can perform anything more believable than a Creator.
Which I don't find that hard to believe.

Most of us 'atheists', we see the possibility, it just does not comply with evidence.
Believing in a Creator requires reason, and reason is a powerful tool, for if your reason is good enough i will helplessly believe as you do. And such reason requires evidence. Is there evidence of a Creator? Or is Nature more reasonable?

If I want to replace the horse and buggy
I have to come up with a car. If I want to replace the bow and arrow
I can do that with the firearm.

What is... is what is. What we use that which what is, is called innovation and technology.

Aka, progress not preservation which has many interpretations of said preservation.

So what replaces Creation?
Not a gawd damn thing that's more believable that's for sure.

Scientific findings, gawd of the gaps is getting smaller and smaller, and you cant study gawd scientifically which means....

Whats the difference between;
1. A God that exists that created the universe but does not interact with creation scientifically; and
2. There is no God.

From my perspective there is no difference.

So if gawd is unknowing, untestable, why believe?

Micro evolution ? [deleted-=Maybe=-deleted]
Macro evolution?

Still evolution. Potato, Potato, lol. Tomato, tomato. Even funnier.

Peace.

originally posted by: Grenade
How would you know?

I would know by the links I provided that showed what you thought were some of the most secret projects in the history of the United States being repeatedly leaked.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I’m not comparing the two, not at all, repeatedly said the flat earth arguments are nonsense. Nonsense because science can easily debunk them.

My only argument was that misinformation and secrets are a major part of military strategy and they can be kept. In my opinion of course, shame opinions seem to be so upsetting on ATS these days. Tow the official line of face the wrath of the ATS thought police. A conspiracy forum and alternative thinking site which drifts further and further into orthodoxy. What the point anymore? Politics and slinging mud.

I wonder throughout history how many people burned for suggesting the Earth wasn’t the centre of the universe before it was generally accepted. How many were ridiculed for suggesting the Earth was a sphere. Turbo might be mis informed but I’ll defend his right to his opinion. Does he really deserve to be abused because he thinks differently? Bunch of keyboard bullies.

As Plato said “Science is nothing but perception”.

Get off the high horse the lot of you and let people believe whatever they want.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: TzarChasm

Am I really? Or am I defending his right to an opinion, however flawed? We all have reasons for what we believe.

If a type 2 or 3 civilisation arrived on our doorstep you could probably throw away both our religious and scientific texts as they would suddenly appear primitive. My argument is that our current Scientific understanding is by no means complete.

Ptolemy’s Almagest for example was written around the same time as the Bible and for over 1000 years was generally accepted as a scientific marvel. Written by as Jay puts it “primitive humans”.

Geocentrism was a generally accepted scientific Theory.

So the fallacy in the drake equation is like flat earth theory and geocentric models of the solar system? Totally bogus?

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: TzarChasm

If a type 2 or 3 civilisation arrived on our doorstep you could probably throw away both our religious and scientific texts as they would suddenly appear primitive. My argument is that our current Scientific understanding is by no means complete.
Ptolemy’s Almagest for example was written around the same time as the Bible and for over 1000 years was generally accepted as a scientific marvel. Written by as Jay puts it “primitive humans”.

Geocentrism was a generally accepted scientific Theory.

I believe you are missing the point of what the Drake Equation is. The Drake Equation itself contains no values for the parameters Drake included. He intentionally made it open so that the values for the parameters could change as our scientific understanding of those parameters increases.

Even when Drake and his colleagues applied the first values to the parameters, he admitted that those values were the "best guess" at the time, and that the values could change as we learn more.

So the Drake Equation is a valid tool, but it is only as valid as our understanding of the current values used. The flexibility of the formula is such that as our understanding gets better, the Drake Equation can just as validly accept those new values.

And even if we put highly conservative guesstimate values in for the parameters, the answer to the formula tells us that other civilizations almost surely exist.

I mean, which of those parameters might you claim has a value of only 1, and why?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

This has been explained. The point of contention is that the "equation" hasn't specifically factored creation models into the question. Or should I say favored...

a reply to: Grenade

Show me how the scientific method was followed as far as geocentrism goes. What tests were done?

"Science" 2000 years ago was not anywhere remotely close to what it is today. They didn't have strict standards of peer review. They didn't have even 1/10000000th of the knowledge and technology we have to study things today. It was not a scientific theory, it was primitive ignorant people searching for confirmations of their faith. Just like they do today with nonsense like ID.

This has to be the most ridiculous thread ever made.

THE FALLACY OF THE DRAKE EQUATION

Yet not a single person has actually outlined a single fallacy used in it, they just lied about it. To them it's a fallacy not to factor in Intelligent Design, something that is complete pseudo-science and has no meritorious support whatsoever and is only championed by Crackpots like Stephen Meyer and William Lane Craig, but ironically they invoke fallacy by attacking it.

This thread has run its course (no course at all).

originally posted by: Barcs
This has to be the most ridiculous thread ever made.

THE FALLACY OF THE DRAKE EQUATION

Yet not a single person has actually outlined a single fallacy used in it, they just lied about it. To them it's a fallacy not to factor in Intelligent Design, something that is complete pseudo-science and has no meritorious support whatsoever and is only championed by Crackpots like Stephen Meyer and William Lane Craig, but ironically they invoke fallacy by attacking it.

This thread has run its course (no course at all).

No dude, you are incapable of perceiving perspectives outside of your own due to excessive bias against anything that defies your nihilist-random-generation-of-life mentality. Do you really think it is more likely that intelligence came from unintelligence rather than intelligence? That is as unintelligent as it gets. Intelligence is a requirement to generate intelligence. Humans create humans, mice create mice, plants create plants, intelligence creates intelligence.

a reply to: Skyfox81

Is there evidence of a Creator? Or is Nature more reasonable?

I think nature is is just a set of laws that have been applied by a Creator.

a reply to: Barcs

This thread has run its course (no course at all).

You've been bagging on this this thread with like ill mannered
misconceptions from it's inception.

I think it might be just getting started.

There is intelligence in everything we see with our eyes
Even our eyes. Atheists are determined that there isn't.

I love things just as they are because I love the wait and see.

Life is full of intelligent riddles. lol

originally posted by: carsforkids
There is intelligence in everything we see with our eyes
Even our eyes. Atheists are determined that there isn't.

Yeah it's hilarious that atheists argue that there is no intelligence involved in this universe, yet they are using their intelligent brains to try to make such an argument.

As if a supercomputer with 100,000,000,000 neurons, and over 1,000,000,000,000 supporting glial cells could have ever come to be by accident. The fact that the Drake equation doesn't factor intelligence into his equations is the main fallacy of his presumptions. Obviously intelligence is a factor in developing intelligent systems.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: carsforkids
There is intelligence in everything we see with our eyes
Even our eyes. Atheists are determined that there isn't.

Yeah it's hilarious that atheists argue that there is no intelligence involved in this universe, yet they are using their intelligent brains to try to make such an argument.

As if a supercomputer with 100,000,000,000 neurons, and over 1,000,000,000,000 supporting glial cells could have ever come to be by accident. The fact that the Drake equation doesn't factor intelligence into his equations is the main fallacy of his presumptions. Obviously intelligence is a factor in developing intelligent systems.

Very profound my good man.

originally posted by: cooperton
No dude, you are incapable of perceiving perspectives outside of your own due to excessive bias against anything that defies your nihilist-random-generation-of-life mentality. Do you really think it is more likely that intelligence came from unintelligence rather than intelligence?

Nice straw man fallacy. See folks, this is how fallacies ACTUALLY work. This is the normal barfworthy argument from Coop that addresses none of what I said and just defaults to dishonest projection.

That is as unintelligent as it gets. Intelligence is a requirement to generate intelligence. Humans create humans, mice create mice, plants create plants, intelligence creates intelligence.

More presuppositions, no backing whatsoever. It's funny how dumb these people are, they literally just make assumptions as factual statements and think that repeating them is a valid argument. Again, why is it fallacious to not include an assumption in a probability theory? Stop failing and prove your point. Quote the drake equation and then quote the fallacy instead of being so pretentious.