The Drake Equation Fallacy

a reply to: ignorant_ape

It takes two to tango.

a reply to: Skyfox81

Wouldn't this be better described as agnosticism?

a reply to: Skyfox81

Likewise, not believing the claim "there is a god" without evidence does not mean believing that there isn't one.

This is an Abbott n Costello movie.

Don't believe the claim
without evidence
Don't believe there isn't one.


The burden of proof is a matter of perspective.
To me the claim there is no God is the wildest most ignorant
claim in the history of consciousness because of all the evidence
I see every time I open my eyes.

So you need to back your claim up if you want to challenge
a worldwide traditional belief system that doesn't sound nearly
as hokey as what atheism purposes.

a reply to: carsforkids




As quite a few others have stated the Drake Equation just deals with the probability of life existing…based on what we can currently see and measure in our known universe etc…

The Drake Equation neither supports or denies the existence of God.

Imagine all the other scientific theories that don't factor in a God into their equations…does that mean they are all fallacies too...No...of course it doesn't..That’s just how science works. Science has to deal with what it can see and measure, which is why God is kept out of the equation.

I personally believe in a creator God...but can also see based on probability, logic and the fact that life has been proven to exist and thrive in even the most harshest of conditions on Earth…that their must be life out there somewhere…it stands to reason imo...

- JC

a reply to: Joecroft

The fallacy doesn't rely on theology.

a reply to: carsforkids

Originally posted by carsforkids
The fallacy doesn't rely on theology

Drakes Equation doesn't need to rely on the “theology"...It relies on Observations, Maths, Equations, and Logic…

Anyway…couldn't the “theology" support the so-called “fallacy”…

I mean, for example...couldn’t Angels be classified as other life existing out there...?

- JC

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: carsforkids

Originally posted by carsforkids
The fallacy doesn't rely on theology

I mean, for example...couldn’t Angels be classified as other life existing out there...?

- JC

Especially if that life was found to be inter-dimensional.

a reply to: Joecroft

I mean, for example...couldn’t Angels be classified as other life existing out there...?

That' in my view is a good question. However with all the possibilities like
other dimensions it becomes impossible for me to even guess. The only
thing I would dare to say is if a supreme being created the universe? Then
by every example of creation we know of a Creator is never captured by
his creation.

So let's say the cosmos are teaming with life. The universe had a beginning
so that would mean that the universe was not always there teaming with life.
That would in turn mean that all the life out there had to have had a start.
It must have happened somewhere first.

The drake equation ignores the fact that life on earth could very well be the
beginning of life filling the cosmos. Just as easily as them being currently filled
with life. The truth is we have no way of knowing where the universe is at in
regards to the chronological order of life filling the universe. If this is the
beginning hello we're it for the time being.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

It seems you are confusing the Drake equation with an evolution vs creation debate. The likelihood of other life exhibiting our intelligence or greater intelligence is a separate subject from "how did life happen".

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: TzarChasm

I already explained how evolution is relevant in my initial comment when I said:

The basis for their skepticism is not hard to see. It could be summed up with two questions: If such extraterrestrials existed, where would they live? And how did they get there?
...
Yet, even if many planets do exist that meet the stringent conditions necessary to sustain life as we know it, the question remains, How would life arise on those worlds? This brings us to the very foundation of the belief in beings on other worlds​—evolution.

To many scientists, it seems logical to believe that if life could evolve from nonliving matter on this planet, that could be true on others as well. As one writer put it: “The general thinking among biologists is that life will begin whenever it is given an environment where it can begin.” But that is where evolution faces an insurmountable objection. Evolutionists cannot even explain how life began on this planet.

Scientists Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe estimate that the odds against life’s vital enzymes forming by chance are one in 10^40,000 (1 with 40,000 zeros after it). Scientists Feinberg and Shapiro go still further. In their book Life Beyond Earth, they put the odds against the material in an organic soup ever taking the first rudimentary steps toward life at one in 10^1,000,000.

Do you find these cumbersome figures hard to grasp? The word “impossible” is easier to remember, and it is just as accurate. The rest of evolutionary theory is equally fraught with trouble.

Still, SETI astronomers blithely assume that life must have originated by chance* all over the universe. [* edit: i.e. 'forged by evolution'; see wikipedia quotation further below, an idea sometimes simply hinted at or triggered in the audience by the mere use of the verb "develop" or evolve, see factor f1 in the Drake equation as described on wiki] Gene Bylinsky, in his book Life in Darwin’s Universe, speculates on the various paths evolution might have taken on alien worlds. He suggests that intelligent octopuses, marsupial men with pouches on their stomachs, and bat-​people who make musical instruments are not at all farfetched. Renowned scientists have praised his book. However, other scientists, such as Feinberg and Shapiro, see the gaping flaw in such reasoning. They decry the “weakness in the basic experimental foundations” of scientists’ theories about how life got started on earth. They note, though, that scientists nonetheless “have used these foundations to erect towers that extend to the end of the Universe.”

What are we speculating about next, pink unicorns on other planets? Note some things wikipedia mentions on the page for the Drake equation:

History
...
Two months later, Harvard University astronomy professor Harlow Shapley speculated on the number of inhabited planets in the universe, saying "The universe has 10 million, million, million suns (10 followed by 18 zeros) similar to our own. One in a million has planets around it. Only one in a million million has the right combination of chemicals, temperature, water, days and nights to support planetary life as we know it. This calculation arrives at the estimated figure of 100 million worlds where life has been forged by evolution."

I.e. "originated by chance", something that has been calculated to be “impossible” “even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.”* Which is a clue why the causal factor "chance" isn't mentioned here or in factor f1 in the Drake equation. *: quick recap of some of my commentary on page 8, then I'll go back to wikipedia again:

When confronted with the astronomical odds against a living cell forming by chance, some evolutionists feel forced to back away. In their book Evolution From Space, the noted British astronomers Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe assert that the chances of life’s springing from some ancient random mixing of chemicals are so “outrageously small” as to be absurd “even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” (which we know it doesn't) They give up, saying: “These issues are too complex to set numbers to.” They add: “There is no way . . . in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one.” They write that “Darwinian evolution is most unlikely to get even one polypeptide [chain of essential life substances] right, let alone the thousands on which living cells depend for survival. This situation is well known to geneticists and yet nobody seems to blow the whistle decisively on the theory.”

Usefulness
...
The Drake equation is a statement that stimulates intellectual curiosity about the universe around us, for helping us to understand that life as we know it is the end product of a natural, cosmic evolution [whereislogic: i.e. life "originated by chance", "a living cell forming by chance", "forged by evolution", something that has still been calculated to be actually impossible] , and for helping us realize how much we are a part of that universe.[6] What the equation and the search for life has done is focus science on some of the other questions about life in the universe, specifically abiogenesis, the development [me: evolution] of multi-cellular life and the development of intelligence itself.

Source: Drake equation - Wikipedia

Now surely, by "separate subject" you did not mean to say that the subjects are so unrelated that I shouldn't have brought up the things I did on page 6?

What is N in the Drake equation when one of its factors is determined and calculated to definitely/certainly be 0? As applied to civilizations other than the one we have here on earth. And what does that mean for the usefulness of the Drake equation in the sciences when used by those who speculate about any value above 0 for factor f1 in spite of the evidence against that being a possibility if one is willing to fill in the "by chance" casual factor that isn't spelled out after the word "develop" under factor f1 in the Drake equation*? *: The Drake equation leaves the means of the development of life in the middle, nice and vague, proposing no causal explanation for this development, nevertheless, we can see what causal factor scientists are rolling with when they try to propose some numbers for f1 other than 0. And what evidence they are ignoring when doing this.

My conclusion: The Drake equation is about as useful as an equation to speculate about the number of advanced civilizations of pink unicorns living on other planets in our universe, originating there by chance.

originally posted by: cooperton
The first intelligence didn't need to be created, because it always existed.

Then you can't say that intelligence only comes from intelligence!!! How do you not see that? If intelligence only comes from intelligence, then your intelligent eternal being can't just exist without cause, it had to come from intelligence. Your arguments are childish, don't blame me for your irrational fallacies and lies being exposed.

You think from a limited 3rd temporal perspective, but this higher intelligence would by definition not be limited by the things in the lower dimensions. This makes sense in light of Newton's law that something cannot come from nothing. The only way around this is that something always existed, and never required to come from nothing. This is the primordial always-existent (alpha-omega) intelligence from which all things came.

LMFAO @ the typical "something can't come from nothing" straw man. No atheist argues that something comes from nothing, they say the origin of the universe is UNKNOWN and not knowing what caused the universe doesn't mean god exists.
Basic logic 101. Intelligence existing is not the same as god existing and the evolution of intelligence is not evidence of a higher intelligence. There is no logical pathway connecting human intelligence with a universal intelligence. That is your presupposition.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Barcs

Atheists lack belief in GOD,

They also lack common sense and replace it with pure psychopathy.

Keep crying and offering nothing of substance. You wonder why I'm constantly laughing at you.

a reply to: Grenade

math =/= science

a reply to: Barcs

. You wonder why I'm constantly laughing at you.

Constantly!

If anything I wonder why in the hell you continue to be
pissed off all the time. You want a better laugh go back
thru this thread and have a good look at yourself. You've
definitely been entertaining.

a reply to: Barcs

Math + Physics + Astronomy = ?

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Barcs

Do atheists lack belief in God? Reject the notion of creation? Or, rule out the existence of intelligent design altogether?

I'd suggest although these BELIEFS are closely related they aren't mutually inclusive.

The word atheist means not theist. Theist means believer in god, so an atheist either lacks belief or disbelieves in god as per the most world renowned common usage dictionary Mirriam-Webster. Yes, an atheist CAN reject notion of creation completely or rule out ID altogether, but it's not a requirement. The only requirement of atheism is not being convinced that a god or deity does exist.

I've met atheists that think aliens made man / forced evolution on apes, who reject science, and I've met some that think the afterlife and soul is real. It's a very broad label that starts at lack of belief, but can be more specific.

Wouldn't this be better described as agnosticism?

No. Agnosticism is not taking a knowledge position on the existence of god, which falls under lacking belief when referencing the existence of god(s).

originally posted by: carsforkids
The burden of proof is a matter of perspective.

False.

To me the claim there is no God is the wildest most ignorant
claim in the history of consciousness because of all the evidence
I see every time I open my eyes.

It's exactly the same as the claim that there is a god. That's why atheists say they lack belief, and don't generally make claims like that. Don't get me wrong, some do, but you can't say that claim is ignorant without also ackonwledging the fact that the POSITIVE CLAIM is also just as ignorant. Most atheists admit they don't know but won't believe without evidence. It's not complicated unless you are an ignorant simpleton.

So you need to back your claim up if you want to challenge
a worldwide traditional belief system that doesn't sound nearly
as hokey as what atheism purposes.

He didn't claim that. You literally just misrepresented what he said AGAIN. Burden of proof is on the positive claim and you've done absolutely zilch to back it up. Atheists don't believe THAT CLAIM. That isn't the same as claiming the opposite, so stop lying already. Damn.

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: carsforkids

As quite a few others have stated the Drake Equation just deals with the probability of life existing…based on what we can currently see and measure in our known universe etc…

The Drake Equation neither supports or denies the existence of God.

Imagine all the other scientific theories that don't factor in a God into their equations…does that mean they are all fallacies too...No...of course it doesn't..That’s just how science works. Science has to deal with what it can see and measure, which is why God is kept out of the equation.

I personally believe in a creator God...but can also see based on probability, logic and the fact that life has been proven to exist and thrive in even the most harshest of conditions on Earth…that their must be life out there somewhere…it stands to reason imo...

- JC

This guy gets it.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Barcs

Math + Physics + Astronomy = ?

Science is a method. If you can't demonstrate the method being used in geocentrism, you can't call it a scientific theory. It was mostly math based. Scientific theories must have lots of hard evidence based on rigorous testing, must be falsifiable, and must make accurate testable predictions based on the model. Geocentrism was wasn't testable or falsifiable until thousands of years later when we began developing aviation and space travel technology and increased our knowledge substantially.

a reply to: Barcs

It's exactly the same as the claim that there is a god.

No it isn't not rationally not logically not intellectually and not
even by common sense. Not to mention the loser odds atheism
is up against. You're ridiculous even to compare.

Science is a blah blah blah method of blah blah blah. Try not to have
an aneurysm.

Science doesn't have anything to do with proving Gods existence.

a reply to: Barcs

So, Newton, Copernicus weren't scientists because we didn't have aviation or space travel to verify their claims?

I can see it's pointless debating you.