The Drake Equation Fallacy

originally posted by: cooperton
It behaves according to precise intelligible laws that have been perpetuating since the beginning.

False. The laws of physics are constants, you have no evidence suggesting they are a result of an intelligent conscious being. Just because humans can measure and calculate them, doesn't mean it requires a god.

You never answered the question though. Which is more probable: something intelligent coming from something intelligence or unintelligence?

WTF is unintelligence? Stop using silly buzz words.

I think natural processes are more likely because it's been demonstrated that complexity can arise naturally, and it's been demonstrated that natural processes/explanations for things exist, while it has never been demonstrated that a god created anything, let alone even exists. Your sophistry doesn't change that. Natural is more likely than super natural, sorry. Plus if your god exists, than intelligence can come from nothing.

And you think the way you express yourself on these forums is leading towards a non-messed up planet? Stop being so crass and negligent to other perspectives.

What about the way YOU express yourself with constant fallacies and lies? Being intellectually dishonest is detrimental and that sums you up to a T.

originally posted by: Grenade
So now you’re redefining science to fit your argument.

Ptolemy was a scientist, make whatever excuses up you like.

I’m sorry but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

We aren’t discussing YOUR interpretation of science.

Provide an example for Galileo or Copernicus that isn’t dependent entirely on Math and Observation.

Either Astronomy is a Science or not. I very much doubt you will ever admit you are wrong but I’m past trying to convince you of anything. Your arrogance holds no bounds.

If ever there was an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect you would be the personification of it.

LMFAO!!!! Science is most definitely a method. You are the one trying redefining it based on ancient standards.

Scientific method

Scientific theory

It's not my fault you made claims that can't be backed up. You said Geocentrism was a scientific theory. Scientific theories have certain standards and you are deflecting over and over. If you can't demonstrate that a scientific theory follows the scientific method, then it's not a scientific theory. This is like 5th grade level stuff, dude.

"Provide an example for Galileo or Copernicus that isn’t dependent entirely on Math and Observation."

Those aren't scientific theories, those are people. You are super confused here. Do you actually want a test for heliocentrism? You can't for Geocentrism which proves it's not a scientific theory. It was hypothesis at best.

Astronomy being a field of science changes absolutely nothing about the fact that science is a method and scientific theories can't exist without testable evidence.



I get that you are upset here, but you have to face the facts. Pretending i'm changing the meaning of science by acknowledge it is a method of testing, is pretty silly.

a reply to: TzarChasm
Nah, it works fine as a filter for those with too short of an attention span. They got nothing interesting to say anyway, saves me the trouble of reading their numerous short comments and/or responses, that in the end, have just as much text if added together. But without anything of value, much like troll- and chatbot-comments are usually short and generic (from a database of valueless sayings, empty speech and empty philosophy as per Col 2:8 and Eph 5:6). We've got almost 70 pages of those already (mostly, and often of the bickering ad hominem kind).

Initially my comment was much shorter though, I added a lot of sidethought as I read my comment from the perspective of a philosophical naturalist and fan of evolutionary philosophies (trying to put myself in their shoes).

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: turbonium1

The southern hemisphere stars prove definitively that the earth is not flat. It would be impossible to look south from 2 different locations (Argentina and south africa) and see the same stars if the earth was flat. There would be no parallax and there wouldn't be the same type of star rotation at the south pole that is observed at the north going the exact opposite rotation.

Explain the southern hemisphere stars on a flat model. Its impossible without inventing all kinds of made up bs. You can't look in opposite directions and see the same stars if the earth is flat.

Let me guess, mirrors and trickery? Sorry the south stars ONLY make sense on a globe.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

But it's all just made up right?

The flat Earth map is made up, that's the problem here.

It works on an accurate flat Earth map, of course.

The irony of your claims on the positions of stars is that you've claimed Earth is a ball, flying through space randomly, and so are all the stars, which you say are trillions of miles away from Earth....

Why would all stars be the exact same for thousands of years, in the exact same position, exactly in RELATIVE position....it is a completely ridiculous argument, to begin with.

How would Polaris - the North star - remain exactly at North, and never change position, if all stars, and Earth, were speeding randomly through space, trillions of miles apart from each other?

Trying to excuse it as 'appearing' to be unchanged, where distance is so great, it causes objects to look unchanged, unmoved, over thousands and thousands of years, at least, which might suggest - based on logic - it has NEVER changed before that time, either.

There is nothing to suggest that thousands of years show no change in any way.

Why would anyone believe endless stars exist, when we see each and every star is the very same star, in the very same position, from ancient times, to now, and the main reason we happen to believe billions, trillions, gazillions of stars really DO exist, 'out there' 'in space'? They tell us about it all. Over and over and over, saying it is all true, nobody knows it is true, but them, since nobody else can ever explore, ever go into, ever test, ever confirm, ever prove at all.....space, or anything about space, being true.

Even to mention that we've NEVER seen a rocket fly up towards space, towards 'orbit', anywhere at all, anytime at all, you don't give a s&(t, even if it's obvious to anyone. You 'can't handle the truth', obviously. Sad, indeed.


Does anyone care about rockets never seen flying towards orbit from Earth, or just too scared, to even admit it?

There is no reason to be scared of saying it's wrong, when it IS wrong. Everyone knows why it's wrong.

Astronomy is not only science, for many people, it is much greater than other sciences. It will help to save us all, or at least, it will try to help us survive. It will warn us of hazards we don't even see, or even know to exist, and this will create such fear, and concerns, for things we don't see, or know to exist!

Thus, we all hope, and 'pray', that they will be able to protect us, from those hazards!


Astronomy is not science, it uses science along the way, and twists it around, so nobody knows it, or realizes it, or thinks they were mistaken about it, because it's all true, and anyone can make mistakes, but they are correctable, of course!


Someone might see a star which looks to be in motion, through a telescope, but he's told it's only an illusion, of a star moving, which we all realize, for sure, because stars are so far away, it's impossible to see movement of a star from Earth, even with telescopes!

Anyone who accepts that stars must all be trillions of miles away from Earth, without proof, would simply assume it is true, as everyone has told us this is true, for so long, and why would they ALL lie about it? No reason for lying about it, and by so many people, that's just absurd! Impossible.


Does anyone have to lie about rockets flying into space, or into orbit, while saying it is true, they believe it, they worked on rockets, and they would know if it was not true, right?


Nobody saw a rocket fly up towards orbit, from Earth. No need to see it, they believe it is true, it is real, it is a fact...

They aren't lying about it, they believe it is true.


Don't you get it?

Nobody lies about it, nobody HAS to lie, because they ALL believe it.


Unlike the stars, or the moon, or anyone claiming to LAND on the moon, which are cases where an impossible claim is true, unless it can be proven to be a false claim.....


A rocket clearly CAN be proven as true, or false, because it can be observed from Earth, and this is HOW to prove it, or if not, we know that it is all FAKED.

Who wants to see a rocket fly up towards orbit, from Earth, besides me?

Who would NOT understand why we've never seen a rocket fly up towards orbit, from Earth?

a reply to: turbonium1

The flat Earth map is made up, that's the problem here.

It works on an accurate flat Earth map, of course.

then post this alledgedly " accurate " flat earth map


no excuses - post the " accurate " flat earth map

using the spheroid model - we can map the world accuratly

and navigate - using the sextant , chrono , almanac and compass

funny how that works init

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: turbonium1

The flat Earth map is made up, that's the problem here.

It works on an accurate flat Earth map, of course.

then post this alledgedly " accurate " flat earth map


no excuses - post the " accurate " flat earth map

using the spheroid model - we can map the world accuratly

and navigate - using the sextant , chrono , almanac and compass

funny how that works init

After I've shown that airplanes measure Earth as flat, and that we've never seen one rocket fly up towards orbit from Earth, which doesn't make sense unless it's all faked, you ignore all of that, and after you hold up a non-existent force once again, as 'evidence' for it, you have the gall to ask for MY evidence?!?!

What about airplane measurements? What about never seeing a rocket actually do what it's claimed to do?

Avoiding those problems won't wash, sorry.

a reply to: turbonium1

sigh- your aircraft delusions - have been addressed repeatedly - you just ignore everything - and continue your willful ignorance

now - the alledgedly accurate flat earth map - please

a reply to: turbonium1

Airplanes don't measure the Earth as flat, they constantly adjust their altitude to allow for the curvature of the Earth. This is done using and altimeter. You already know this as it has been pointed out to you before.

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: turbonium1

Airplanes don't measure the Earth as flat, they constantly adjust their altitude to allow for the curvature of the Earth. This is done using and altimeter. You already know this as it has been pointed out to you before.

Airplanes cannot measure any sort of 'curvature', even if it existed at 35,000 feet below a plane, which it does not.

Airplanes measure level flight within air, using pressure around the plane during flight to measure for level. It is not in a descent, nor in ascent, when level. It does not matter how the Earth's surface is shaped, they do NOT 'adjust' the plane for Earth's shape. Please explain how a plane would adjust for 1800 feet of curvature, during a 6 hour flight, while never measuring for it?

Airplane instruments do NOT measure a different altitude when flying over a mountain range, right? Why not?
If the plane measured the true altitude, of the surface below, it WOULD measure for mountains beneath it, on the surface of Earth, and it would measure for a much lower altitude than earlier, obviously.


When airplanes first take off, they take the altitude from there, or at sea level, and altitude rises from that point, to cruising altitude, and then stays at cruising altitude all along the way, until it finally starts to land down, afterwards.


How could a plane ever measure, if it even could measure, the whole surface of Earth during a flight, as any sort of altitude that supposedly has a slight curve, of about 8 inches per mile squared, when it doesn't even measure mountain ranges of thousands of feet?

What are planes measuring as altitude, when they are not even measuring a lower altitude over a mountain range? A little 8 inch per mile curve, get serious!


How do planes adjust their altitude during flight? They do not adjust for the surface below the plane, if you don't know that yet.

Planes first take off at an altitude of the surface, which they use as a barometer/guideline reading for any other altitudes after that, in flight, in landing down. They do NOT measure the surface of Earth below, any time at all, it's absurd to even suggest it.

What measures altitude in flight ? With two or more other instruments, like the VSI, or Vertical Speed Indicator, which measures ascent, or descent, as well as level flight, and matched to the altimeter, which adjusts accordingly to ascent, decent, or level flight.

Planes cannot measure the Earth's surface at 30,000 feet, unless they used a laser measurement, and they don't need to measure mountain ranges with lasers, as they already know what the terrain will be on their flights, beforehand. Or should know, anyway.

There are no measurements done using the surface of Earth during flights, and there are no instruments on planes that measure the surface 30000 feet below.

That's a fact. Deal with it. No excuses for it, sorry to say.

a reply to: Barcs

The problem is these standards evolve and change over time. You're purposely referring to the modern scientific method, claiming that somehow science began out of nothing at around the 17th century. Ignoring the fact that this method was based on ancient astronomy and the underpinning knowledge and reasoning which has been developed by people throughout recorded history such as ancient astronomers.

You know time, the modern interpretation of which is based on the movement of stars.

The data from Syntaxis essentially laid the foundation for Byzantine, Islamic and medieval calendars.

The precision of his astronomical observation is the only way we have precisely known and continuous calendars based on celestial motion.

Again, the scientific model changes with the science and technology of the times.

His model was good enough to convince the world for over a thousand years until the creation of the telescope!

End of subject, you're tiresome and blinded by your theological beliefs.

Ptolemy was an astronomer. You can argue with his method but to say he is anything other than a man of science is stupidity! His deductions and reasoning had nothing to do with theology.

originally posted by: Barcs

False. The laws of physics are constants, you have no evidence suggesting they are a result of an intelligent conscious being.

It is immensely more likely that these mathematically predictable laws were implemented by intelligence rather than random chance.

originally posted by: turbonium1
The flat Earth map is made up, that's the problem here.

It works on an accurate flat Earth map, of course.

Of course the flat earth map is made up,there is no accurate flat earth map.

Post your best flat model earth picture right here and I'll do the same thing and see if it points the same way to see the same stars, otherwise it fails to explain reality. I've heard this claim before, and seen slightly different maps but it doesn't change the fact that looking south from all southern hemisphere continents shows the same stars. Even in Australia, where you would be looking in the exact opposite direction of South Africa and Argentina. There is no flat model earth that can account for this. Anyways this is the fatal flaw in flat earth model, so if you can't rectify it the entire thing collapses. Let's see your best flat earth model that can account for southern hemisphere stars.

The irony of your claims on the positions of stars is that you've claimed Earth is a ball, flying through space randomly, and so are all the stars, which you say are trillions of miles away from Earth....

I don't say that, scientists who have studied astrophysics and astronomy for hundreds of years and done extensive research have. Everything in the universe moves, that is consistent, not random. We've seen the earth from space, for goodness sake.

Why would all stars be the exact same for thousands of years, in the exact same position, exactly in RELATIVE position....it is a completely ridiculous argument, to begin with.

Because we live in a galaxy where the stars are rotating around the galactic center at a similar pace and it takes 250 million years for our sun to even complete one lap. Of course we aren't going to see major changes in a thousand years, LMFAO! We do see some changes, however, and can calculate exactly where the stars will be a million years from now. Certain stars went supernova as well during that time so the stars are not the exact same as ancient times. But as I said, 1000 years is like a nano second compared to 250 million years.

How would Polaris - the North star - remain exactly at North, and never change position, if all stars, and Earth, were speeding randomly through space, trillions of miles apart from each other?

You are repeating outdated myths. The north star is not exactly at the north pole and it DOES experience very slight parallax that we can measure. Another fail point.

Why would anyone believe endless stars exist, when we see each and every star is the very same star, in the very same position, from ancient times, to now, and the main reason we happen to believe billions, trillions, gazillions of stars really DO exist, 'out there' 'in space'? They tell us about it all. Over and over and over, saying it is all true, nobody knows it is true, but them, since nobody else can ever explore, ever go into, ever test, ever confirm, ever prove at all.....space, or anything about space, being true.

They aren't endless. Buy yourself a telescope, you can observe them for yourself.

Even to mention that we've NEVER seen a rocket fly up towards space, towards 'orbit', anywhere at all, anytime at all, you don't give a s&(t, even if it's obvious to anyone.

Long debunked... A rocket going directly upwards would take tons more fuel and energy to lift off. It doesn't make sense to fly straight up against gravity. That's why they fly toward the horizon and increase speed to eventually achieve orbit.

How can you say that we are the ones in fear? You are terrified of some fake massive conspiracy to hide the shape of the earth involving tens of thousands of people and for no intelligible reason.

Also airplanes don't measure the earth, they fly people to destinations. Satellites are used for GPS and navigation. It should be easy to test the accuracy of GPS satellites on the round and flat earth models by following the directions to a destination (IE the most efficient travel path from NY to LA would be different on flat model than it would round. If flat was accurate, you could take a faster route.

Plus Satellites and the International Space Station are observable. If you live near the orbit path of the ISS you can look at it in your telescope. It may even be visible to the naked eye. It has a web cam stream so you can verify it's actually in the position it says it is and the conditions to prove it's not a fake. You can do many of these tests yourself. The thing is scientists already have, and corporations care way too much about profit to intentionally take longer routes to destinations. People would figure it out really quick.

originally posted by: Grenade
The problem is these standards evolve and change over time. You're purposely referring to the modern scientific method, claiming that somehow science began out of nothing at around the 17th century. Ignoring the fact that this method was based on ancient astronomy and the underpinning knowledge and reasoning which has been developed by people throughout recorded history such as ancient astronomers.

Dude, that was my exact point. Science back then was archaic. Just because people called themselves scientists, doesn't mean they made scientific theories. Scientific theories didn't exist until after 1600s. Of course I'm using the modern meaning of "science," why wouldn't I? Afterall, you brought up geocentrism to suggest what we know in modern science could be wrong. My point is that calling it a scientific theory is not accurate.

It's like how people used to call themselves doctors hundreds of years ago when they knew nothing about medicine. Would you include blood letting, leeches, and witch doctors as part of medical science? Is alchemy part of chemistry?

It seems your goal here was to question the credibility of science, and yes you can question that credibility 1000+ years ago, but science and our understanding TODAY is based on the scientific method which has very strict standards of substantiation and peer review. So bringing up geocentrism as a knock on science today is absurd. It's apples to oranges. With modern scientific theories, they are extremely unlikely to be debunked because they are substantiated through rigorous testing. It's extremely rare that a theory gets proved wrong. Sure, it's possible, that's why they are all falsifiable, but geocentrism being wrong isn't an indication that modern scientific theories are shaky or that 1000 years from now they will all be shown wrong.

originally posted by: neformore
...
One relies completely and utterley on blind faith - and nothing else.

The other relies on things we can actually measure and physically see.

This is why I - personally - can't accept a divine being as the basis of everything. ...

I think you may have some things turned around in your mind as per Isaiah 5:20,21. The mischaracterization of the relevant evolutionary philosophies and myths in response to my commentary about them, helps out (which is why I didn't quote that from you again, I will do so further below). I've seen Dawkins using the same trick when using the word "evolution".

In April 1989, in a book review in The New York Times Book Review magazine, biologist Richard Dawkins wrote: “We are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt.” He then said that to consider creation “in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-​earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay on evolution in the January 1987 issue of the science magazine Discover. Intent on overkill, in this five-​page article he proclaimed evolution to be a fact 12 times!

At one point in the article, Gould said: “I don’t want to sound like a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys,’ but biologists have reached a consensus . . . about the fact of evolution.” But really, does that not sound like “a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys’”?

Molecular biologist Michael Denton referred to this glib talk about evolution’s being a fact and dismissed it with these words: “Now of course such claims are simply nonsense.” It’s much more than nonsense. It’s fraud. It deceives and misrepresents. Newspapers, radio, TV, nature series, science programs, schoolbooks from second grade on​—all drum this evolution-​is-a-fact litany into the public mind.

‘Believe as we do,’ evolutionists say. ‘All competent scientists believe evolution. All intelligent people believe it. Only the uneducated and the ignorant* don’t believe it.’ (*: quoting Dawkins: “ignorant, stupid or insane”; the same paintjob is often done on those who believe in Creation and a Creator) By such intimidation and mental bullying, masses of people are herded into the evolutionists’ camp. They know nothing of the weaknesses and inadequacies of evolutionary theory or its unsound speculations and hypothesized impossibilities​—such as the origin of life from inanimate chemicals.

So they are swept along by the repetitious mantras recited by evolution’s propagandizers. The theory becomes dogma, its preachers become arrogant, and dissenters reap disdainful abuse. The tactics work. They did in Jesus’ day; they do today.

This four-​word propaganda line, ‘Evolution is a fact,’ is little (little in content), is a simple sentence (easily said), and is repeated persistently (even 12 times in one short essay). It qualifies as effective brainwashing propaganda, and with repetition it reaches the status of a slogan​—and slogans everywhere repeated are soon programmed into brains and tripped off tongues with little critical examination or skeptical dissection.* Once a theory has been sloganized into community thinking, it no longer requires proof, and any who dissent are scorned. If such dissenters present rational refutation of the slogan’s validity, they are especially irritating and subjected to the only available response, namely, ridicule.

*: coming back to the bolded sentence of yours where you say:

This is why I - personally - can't accept a divine being as the basis of everything.

And as astonomer George Greenstein expresses such a creedal dogma and slogan as mentioned where I put the "*":

“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency​—or, rather, Agency—​must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially drafted the cosmos for our benefit?” But Greenstein recovers from such heretical thinking and reasserts his orthodoxy to the evolutionary religion, reciting one of their creedal dogmas: “God is not an explanation.”

I can see you have been affected by that creedal dogma as well.

Source: Fraud in Science—The Greatest Fraud of All (Awake!—1990)

Along with the habit of mischaracterizing the topic I was talking about (or evolution) as merely "the development over time of bio chemistry", regardless of what kind of devopment over time, something that isn't under dispute and therefore a giant red herring mischaracterization of the evolutionary philosophies and myths that were under dispute by me in the comment you were responding to (changing the subject). Those that actually are proposed as an alternative to Creation such as the chemical evolution of life by chance from things that are not alive; without proper evidence and in spite of all the evidence against it that I've been discussing in this thread and the other thread about "Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies". Where I also mentioned at the end:

Alice, in the tale Through the Looking-​Glass, incredulous at the strange logic of the White Queen, could only laugh. “There’s no use trying,” she said. “One can’t believe impossible things.” The queen responded: “I dare say you haven’t had much practice. When I was your age I did it for half an hour a day. Why sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

Evolutionists are the White Queens of today. They have had infinite practice in believing impossible things.

Including this one that I mentioned on page 6 (between brackets is new):

*: the aliens responsible for the directed panspermia in this storyline are assumed to have evolved on another planet, thus, it's still an evolutionary storyline (not to mention that the bacteria said to have been seeded on earth in this storyline are assumed to have evolved into all the other lifeforms on earth, another baseless assumption making use of people's belief in the [impossible] myth that mutations provide the raw materials for this kind of evolution).

Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.19

[19. Nobel Lectures, Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962, 1999, “The Production of Mutations,” by H. J. Muller, 1946, p. 162.]

Source: Evolution—Myths and Facts

For anyone who cares to see the facts that demonstrate that that myth can also be appropiately referred to as “impossible”, see link.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

TL;DR

What if I leave out some of the side thoughts this time, or at least the really big ones...(between brackets is new):

originally posted by: whereislogic

You're doing the Jim Carrey thing on purpose [now] aren't you?

"So you're telling me there is a chance." (that it happened by chance in this context)

I think I was pretty clear in my explanation that there isn't and how one can tell. Even clearer than the lady in that scene. Didn't even need much math for it, my reasons were primarily based on biology, chemistry and physics, as explained in more detail by Tour (and me before). Some people just don't wanna hear it, not wanting to deal with inconvenient facts/certainties/realities/truths, and definitely not wanting to acknowledge these well-established facts. Sometimes, the behaviour is so exaggerated, that it almost seems like an act, a funny sketch:

Just make sure one is not too eager to point out others who believe in the possibility (and even plausibility; or the existence) of things without proper evidence. ... Cause it would make one look a bit hypocritical, doing the pointy finger thing ... when demonstrating the Baldrick behaviour [but only regarding inconvenient facts, not "everything"] (... believing something is possible "without proper evidence" and in denial of all the evidence against it, as if it isn't conclusive by means of agnostic attitudes for things that are as clear/unambiguous and certain that 1+1=2; some people just prefer to argue that it isn't because it's inconvenient to the rest of their arguments and their denial and evasion of the argument of induction regarding Creation by means of wishful thinking and imagination, pure fantasies. Myths one desperately wants to cling to as being at least possible, so one doesn't need to acknowledge the only logical explanation for the origin of life that actually fits the facts, the machinery and technology of life, and follows the method of induction regarding those subjects properly).

originally posted by: TzarChasm

When the impossible has been eliminated, what remains, however implausible, must be the truth.

You don't seem willing to eliminate the impossible from the discussion or consideration. I haven't even seen you willing to acknowledge the impossibility of something that is so clearly impossible as the origination, evolution, or development of life from things that are not alive by chance, perhaps so you can convince yourself (or others) that you don't have to eliminate it and can continue to pretend that it is possible, however unlikely/implausible (supposedly). ... Nice shift away from Sherlock Holmes' actual methodology though (incorporating agnostic philosophies and attitudes) if that was the motive or reason for bringing it up (...as agnostic attitudes rule supreme in some circles to keep the door to this myth about the origin of life and other similar myths always open*).

I'm not afraid to admit that it's a well-established certainty/fact that the spontaneous origination/evolution/development of life from things that are not alive by chance = impossible. And that over the last 60 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth [or any other planet] from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.” (How Life Began​—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.)

*:

Of course, with those side thoughts, I was anticipating and already responding to any objections I could expect from the fans of these myths to the way I phrased some things (or merely objections or disagreements that might pop up in someone's mind). Those are now nicely removed for those who want to play that type of debate-game looking for flaws to poke at and use their hypnotic hammer on, or to use as personal excuses for the type of denial and favoritism towards agnostic philosophies that I spoke about, specifically applied to the inconvenient facts and evidence, or factual evidence regarding the possibility or plausibility of their favorite evolutionary myths (or rather, their impossibility, but that of course also says something about the possibility of something, as in 'not possible').

a reply to: Barcs

And yet if there’s anyone around to read this thread in another 1000 years they will laugh at our current theories in light of technological advancement. As we delve deeper into the quantum realm we will find the puzzle to be much more complex than Copernicus ever imagined.

Our scientific method will change but we should not discount those who led by example for nothing is certain and we should always be adaptable.

An accurate model of the stars based on astronomical observation was a wonder of science and logic 1500 years ago and you are exactly the type of person who would be hailing Ptolemy as a maverick of logic, reason, method, obvervation and experimentation.

originally posted by: Barcs
Long debunked... A rocket going directly upwards would take tons more fuel and energy to lift off. It doesn't make sense to fly straight up against gravity. That's why they fly toward the horizon and increase speed to eventually achieve orbit.

Yes, I'm well aware of the non-existent force that solves all problems, that makes rockets have to veer off sideways over the ocean, out of sight, which is EXACTLY the point I'm going from.

AFTER a rocket veers over the ocean, out of sight, that's the end of it. We never see a rocket afterwards, or just see footage of a rocket still flying horizontal, or nearly so, same as before. That's it.

Of course, NASA claims to be tracking all their rockets, start to finish, right?

Which means NASA would know exactly where the rocket flies around Earth, AFTER it goes out of sight, over the ocean, and where it is going to fly upward, until it flies up, towards 'orbit', appearing as no more than a tiny speck above Earth, until we need telescopes to view it at all.

Even an idiot can understand how this would be one of the most spectacular sights ever seen, on Earth. We have all seen rockets launch from Earth, and fly up, and veer off over the ocean.

But we have NEVER, EVER seen a rocket fly beyond that point, upward, and upward, towards 'orbit', until it is no more than a tiny speck in the sky.


Good grief, man. I'm sure you can get a clue about what stinks here, so why can't you even admit the truth here?

I don't understand why you can't be honest about this. What is the problem with admitting the truth?

originally posted by: Barcs
Also airplanes don't measure the earth, they fly people to destinations. Satellites are used for GPS and navigation. It should be easy to test the accuracy of GPS satellites on the round and flat earth models by following the directions to a destination (IE the most efficient travel path from NY to LA would be different on flat model than it would round. If flat was accurate, you could take a faster route.

Plus Satellites and the International Space Station are observable. If you live near the orbit path of the ISS you can look at it in your telescope. It may even be visible to the naked eye. It has a web cam stream so you can verify it's actually in the position it says it is and the conditions to prove it's not a fake. You can do many of these tests yourself. The thing is scientists already have, and corporations care way too much about profit to intentionally take longer routes to destinations. People would figure it out really quick.

Yes, planes fly people to destinations, and that's when they measure Earth, along the way to these destinations.

This is not something done without accurate measurements by instruments on airplanes.

These instruments are extremely important during flights, and to claim they measure level flight, as NOT level flight, but as a 'level to Earth's curvature'.......is one of the worst, most ridiculous excuses I've ever heard, which is quite an accomplishment, indeed.

The VSI measures level flight, ascent, and descent, as I've mentioned.

And the attitude indicator also measures it, as straight and level flight. It's the little plane on the instrument panel, btw.

I've been trying to tell you again and again, this has NOTHING to do with the surface of Earth, in any way. There is nothing that measures as level, as NOT level. Not on planes, nor anywhere else, by any instrument measuring level....it means level, and that's it.

If you refuse to accept that these instruments are actually measuring Earth during flights, for no other reason except that they measure Earth as a FLAT surface, thousands of times a day, it's obviously not about proof, it is about supporting a belief, that withstands any proof against it, by ignoring it, dismissing it as nothing, and most important, to repeatedly claim you have already explained it many times.

That sure sounds like they have answered it, why say it if it's not true? Because they side with those who say many things which are not true, while they appear as answers, and claimed endlessly as being answers....when they answer nothing, no proof to support their answers.....

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Technically the Earth is more "oblongoid" than spherical. Imagine an orange that's been sat on.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

TL;DR

What if I leave out some of the side thoughts this time, or at least the really big ones...(between brackets is new):

originally posted by: whereislogic

You're doing the Jim Carrey thing on purpose [now] aren't you?

"So you're telling me there is a chance." (that it happened by chance in this context)

I think I was pretty clear in my explanation that there isn't and how one can tell. Even clearer than the lady in that scene. Didn't even need much math for it, my reasons were primarily based on biology, chemistry and physics, as explained in more detail by Tour (and me before). Some people just don't wanna hear it, not wanting to deal with inconvenient facts/certainties/realities/truths, and definitely not wanting to acknowledge these well-established facts. Sometimes, the behaviour is so exaggerated, that it almost seems like an act, a funny sketch:

Just make sure one is not too eager to point out others who believe in the possibility (and even plausibility; or the existence) of things without proper evidence. ... Cause it would make one look a bit hypocritical, doing the pointy finger thing ... when demonstrating the Baldrick behaviour [but only regarding inconvenient facts, not "everything"] (... believing something is possible "without proper evidence" and in denial of all the evidence against it, as if it isn't conclusive by means of agnostic attitudes for things that are as clear/unambiguous and certain that 1+1=2; some people just prefer to argue that it isn't because it's inconvenient to the rest of their arguments and their denial and evasion of the argument of induction regarding Creation by means of wishful thinking and imagination, pure fantasies. Myths one desperately wants to cling to as being at least possible, so one doesn't need to acknowledge the only logical explanation for the origin of life that actually fits the facts, the machinery and technology of life, and follows the method of induction regarding those subjects properly).

originally posted by: TzarChasm

When the impossible has been eliminated, what remains, however implausible, must be the truth.

You don't seem willing to eliminate the impossible from the discussion or consideration. I haven't even seen you willing to acknowledge the impossibility of something that is so clearly impossible as the origination, evolution, or development of life from things that are not alive by chance, perhaps so you can convince yourself (or others) that you don't have to eliminate it and can continue to pretend that it is possible, however unlikely/implausible (supposedly). ... Nice shift away from Sherlock Holmes' actual methodology though (incorporating agnostic philosophies and attitudes) if that was the motive or reason for bringing it up (...as agnostic attitudes rule supreme in some circles to keep the door to this myth about the origin of life and other similar myths always open*).

I'm not afraid to admit that it's a well-established certainty/fact that the spontaneous origination/evolution/development of life from things that are not alive by chance = impossible. And that over the last 60 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth [or any other planet] from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.” (How Life Began​—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.)

*:

Of course, with those side thoughts, I was anticipating and already responding to any objections I could expect from the fans of these myths to the way I phrased some things (or merely objections or disagreements that might pop up in someone's mind). Those are now nicely removed for those who want to play that type of debate-game looking for flaws to poke at and use their hypnotic hammer on, or to use as personal excuses for the type of denial and favoritism towards agnostic philosophies that I spoke about, specifically applied to the inconvenient facts and evidence, or factual evidence regarding the possibility or plausibility of their favorite evolutionary myths (or rather, their impossibility, but that of course also says something about the possibility of something, as in 'not possible').

You talk like you're playing 5D chess. You can relax, you don't have to anticipate every possible response I might type. But I have to say I don't see how it's impossible to brew prokaryotic life on a rock that's stewing in cosmic compounds. Your math says it's very very hard to do, but still feasible given about 2 million years to ferment. Are you willing to conduct the necessary experimentation to prove your point beyond reasonable doubt? Obviously you would need to compile a record of methods and results to share online for peer review. But that's the easy part.