The Drake Equation Fallacy

The ordered precise universe is extremely more likely to have been implemented by an intelligent force, rather than random chance. Therefore, Drake's equation is erroneous because it supposes life coming to be by sheer randomness.

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being. And if the fixed Stars are the centers of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must all be subject to the dominion of One."

-Isaac Newton

a reply to: cooperton

Dont get me wrong here, although Isaac Newton was an incredibly intelligent person, a well educated 10 year old today knows more about the world and its workings.

Germs, particles, health, etc etc.

originally posted by: cooperton
The ordered precise universe is extremely more likely to have been implemented by an intelligent force, rather than random chance. Therefore, Drake's equation is erroneous because it supposes life coming to be by sheer randomness.

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being. And if the fixed Stars are the centers of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must all be subject to the dominion of One."

-Isaac Newton

You mean what is left of the universe after the overwhelming majority of cosmic activity collapsed into devastation conflagration and was scattered as atoms to be reused in whatever phenomena survived the initial chaos and subsequent fallout of the big bang. We can barely get off this rock but certainly we can state that the vast stellar expanse has been measured and found in abundance of intelligence fingerprints that we have traced back to specific conscious agencies who are documented and established in our database of personal biography and backgrounds, complete with picture album, audio recordings, and genetic profile and material samples that are spectroanalyzed and available for public scrutiny. Oh wait, NONE of this information exists.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Do you not have access to YouTube? Still new to the internet? Because videos are all over the place. We have SEEN it happen multiple times. Of course it is very expensive so there aren't literally millions of examples but certainly enough to illustrate the facts.

Every time I hear someone say there are all sorts of video showing a rocket fly towards 'orbit', until it is a mere space VIEWED FROM EARTH, they show me a view from supposed 'rockets'. In one case, they've shown me three different rockets, from three videos, from different angles, and the third rocket plummeting to Earth, before they cut the video. Not because it would show the rocket smash into the ocean, I'm sure!

So, like I've asked the others, show me a rocket flying towards 'orbit', until it is a speck, TAKEN FROM EARTH.

Anyone who claims there are such videos "all over the place", should have no problem sourcing one here, right?


So go ahead, I can't wait to see it...

I've repeatedly asked for a video of any rocket flying until it is a speck - shown from Earth!

All I get are videos like these, which show nothing I asked for...

Do you realize these videos do not show rockets - from Earth viewpoint - going until merely a speck is seen, above Earth??

a reply to: Barcs

No, you’ve taken a stance that Ptolemy wasn’t a scientist. You invoked modern scientific method while disregarding its evolution to current standards then somehow pushed that perspective onto me. I’ve always maintained he was an early pioneer of science along with others such as Hipparchus and Aristotle. Without their input we wouldn’t be where we are now.

I keep hearing you say scientific theory and method but these are not assertions I made, only convoluted arguments to enforce your position.

I’ve shown I can apologise when I’ve re-assessed my position, I’ve shown I can compromise by finding common ground with those who have different perspectives, I’ve never claimed my position is true or factual, it’s simply my own opinion based on the information I have at hand, it is fluid and open to change, can you say the same?

Science is not complete nor does it prove anything, as a student of the art I’m sure you realise this if you could just stop being so obtuse and drop the arrogance.

I’m no more right than you, we just differ in our conclusions. It’s the nature of debate.

a reply to: Skyfox81

Yes, we might have refined our understanding but it’s no means complete or validated, so although we have improved it’s far from perfect.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

True, but do we really understand the processes fully? At a fundamental level do we have any notion of the underlying mechanics permeating the quantum realm? Is it possible that as we dig even deeper a new branch of physics could offshoot and provide a more consistent and unified model?

The Higgs boson for example, remind me again by a factor of how many our projections for the mass of the so called “god” particle were off? Does that render the science useless because it was wrong?

a reply to: TzarChasm

I’m comparing it because somehow people believe that we are now advanced enough to promote the idea that we have some kind of complete understanding of physics. Far from it, I’m sure folk like yourself believed geo-centrism was an accurate description of celestial motion, that’s the problem, science and those who accept it as gospel seem to think they are right. That is up till the point models change and we are forced into a new notion of reality, which although more complex and refined is likely just a drop in the ocean when it comes to the real mechanics of this experience we call life. A convincing argument i agree, but still we should remain objective and vigilant when discussing something with such complexity.

My argument is that science is progressive and those with rigid beliefs don’t understand its history or evolution.

In 1000 years I very much doubt we will have stagnated and still have the same beliefs. Who knows, maybe our debate here will still remain on record and the silicon based overlords will gain some insight into our primitive thought process.

a reply to: Skyfox81

Give principia or syntaxis to absolutely anyone you know and see how far they get. 10 year olds do not understand chord functions or trigonometry in my experience.

a reply to: whereislogic

Exactly, you have so called scientists searching for life that right now, outside of speculative equations and assumptions, simply doesn't exist.

a reply to: Grenade

I said;
"Isaac Newton was an incredibly intelligent person..."

That would be more intelligent than around 95% of people today.

What i was getting at was;
"a well educated 10 year old today knows more about the world and its workings"

Aka a well educated 10 year old understands more about the universe than Newton.

Newton wouldnt even know what most of a 10 year old would be talking about.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: cooperton
Science by definition has existed the moment that humans took notice of predictable observations and began creating or manipulating things based off those consistencies.

I said the scientific method. Try not to fail so hard next time.

Yes, you said it, not me. So technically you are arguing with yourself.

a reply to: Skyfox81

And yet in the grand scheme i'm of the opinion we still only understand a tiny fraction, which will appear primitive over time. Unless of course we reach a nexus within the sciences and turn into some kind of all knowing species with unified understanding. I fear we will either be destroyed by our technology before then or assimilated into a digital realm with the invention of AGI, would be difficult to call us human once we diverge into digital consciousness.

I read a really good book on the subject called The Artilect War: Cosmists Vs. Terrans.

Personally i would choose "Terrans" in this scenario, i have a feeling most creationists would do the same whereas the atheists among us would join the collective consciousness "Cosmists".

a reply to: ignorant_ape

It's so predictable you would talk past that it was already conceded that: "Even if such planets do exist​—and some indirect evidence has accumulated to indicate that they do— ...". So whether or not these are "confirmed" as you label it now, doesn't actually matter. It's only fair to remind people of the following which still counts in 2020:

Because to detect one is exceedingly difficult. Since stars are so distant and planets do not emit any light of themselves, detecting even a giant planet, such as Jupiter, is like trying to spot a speck of dust floating around a powerful light bulb miles away. [and you've already moved on to claims about their composition of elements, talk about jumping the gun on this one, but...and here comes the real kicker...]

Even if such planets do exist​—and some indirect evidence has accumulated to indicate that they do—​this still does not mean that they orbit precisely the right kind of star in the right galactic neighborhood, at precisely the right distance from the star, and are themselves of precisely the right size and composition to sustain life. [and that's not even considering all criteria for sustaining life, forget about propagandistically labeling planets as "earth like" to give that impression of the ability to sustain life before satisfying at least all of these criteria]

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.
...
“The general thinking among biologists is that life will begin whenever it is given an environment where it can begin.”

And that's the main point, that assumption is wrong (I was a bit early with the expression "the real kicker"), so it doesn't matter how many planets there are, confirmed or speculated based on "indirect evidence". It's just that some people are given the wrong impression regarding the difficulty of actually detecting a planet conclusively; which is why I felt it prudent to remind people of that as well, besides my main point also expressed by James Tour and further commented on at the end of my previous comment, the real kicker I was actually referring to (I was thinking about leaving out that paragraph about the criteria for sustaining life, but I was also responding to the habit of labeling certain planets as "earth like"; so my comment about "the real kicker" became slightly out of position, it's the bolded parts in my previous comment that are the real kicker).

We can start a debate about whether your label "confirmed" is justified by now, but since it doesn't matter regarding my main point, what's the point in going there if one doesn't want to be distracted from the point that:

"Molecules don't care about life. Organisms care about life. Chemistry, on the contrary is utterly indifferent to life. Without a biologically derived entity acting upon them, molecules have never been shown to evolve toward life. Never."

As James Tour put it in his presentation about the origin of life (video is on page 6 or 7). Or my side point about jumping the gun when it comes to claims about other planets' elemental composition supposedly warranting the label "earth like". It's just to get some perspective on the matter of those making claims about their elemental composition when it's like trying to spot a speck of dust floating around a powerful light bulb miles away and making claims about its composition, exact shape and size. No, I do not think the label "earth like" (with the implication being that it can sustain life) is warranted concerning other planets given the amount of data we actually can gather or detect about that. Not in 1990 and not in 2020. That would be the wrong impression if one thinks we do have sufficient data to do that conclusively* (*: something the majority of agnostic astronomers won't even touch as they express their love of the agnostic philosophy that 'there are no certainties in science', as they sometimes say it in their favored contradiction in terms used to promote their unverified philosophies and philosophizing behaviour under the marketing-label "science"; an agnostic philosophy that is also incompatible with the term "confirmed", but like I mentioned, I feel no need to go there, just thought I'd mention it).

Yes, stars are stars. And if you actually read through my commentary on page 6 you will see some recent data suggesting that our particular type of star called the Sun, is much rarer than many people would like to speculate in order to fit in with their wishful speculations and storylines about "earth like" planets capable of sustaining life near supposed Sun-like stars. The term "just like" doesn't really apply when they are much smaller or larger. That would be in the eye of the beholder again, what is "just like" to one person may be "quite different" to another (especially if they are aware of a few details regarding the impact on possible lifeforms and planets near that star given its size and how intense it burns and what it is that is actually burning, especially those involving the subject of harmful radiation or not receiving enough heat and light, or too much).

I probably shouldn't respond to what looks like a straw man interpretation of my supposed belief that no other star can have a planetary system orbiting it, since that isn't the case (isn't my belief) as clarified in the opening of this comment; which was already clear from my previous comment and my commentary on page 6 that that was neither my belief nor any point made in my commentary. But there you have it, that's my response to that question which looks more rhetorical to attribute something silly to me anyway and it also happens to function as a nice red herring from the main and actual points in my commentary.

From the year 2000: “In the last few decades, a growing number of astronomers have promulgated the view that alien civilizations are likely to be scattered among the stars,” states The New York Times. “This extraterrestrial credo has fueled not only countless books, movies and television shows . . . but a long scientific hunt that uses huge dish antennas to scan the sky for faint radio signals from intelligent aliens.” That search will most likely fail, say two prominent scientists, Dr. Peter D. Ward and Dr. Donald C. Brownlee, authors of the book Rare Earth. New findings in astronomy, paleontology, and geology, they say, show “that Earth’s composition and stability are extraordinarily rare” and that conditions elsewhere are unsuitable for complex life-forms. “We have finally said out loud what so many have thought for so long—that complex life, at least, is rare,” said Dr. Ward. Adds Dr. Brownlee: “People say the Sun is a typical star. That’s not true. Almost all environments in the universe are terrible for life. It’s only Garden of Eden places like Earth where it can exist.”

Some people really like giving others a false impression. One may one day consider their motives for saying that the Sun is a typical star. Or that there are many "earth like" planets out there, using the label rather loosely, not being too picky as to what to label as "earth like" cause a certain type of people won't object anyway.

a reply to: whereislogic

and yet - you ignore the fact that " we " have directly imaged some of the exoplanets

but hey

originally posted by: cooperton

Why do star pulses prove the existence of exoplanets? From what I've read they are convinced that a predictable temporary dwindling of a star indicates it could be an exoplanet. Is this the extent of the evidence?

Did you notice the line where it says:

Methodology

Main article: Methods of detecting exoplanets

About 97% of all the confirmed exoplanets have been discovered by indirect techniques of detection, mainly by radial velocity measurements and transit monitoring techniques.[56] Recently the techniques of singular optics have been applied in the search for exoplanets.[57]

They don't seem to be very clear about the remaining 3% there. In any case, the term "indirect evidence" as used in my quotations from the 1990 article still seems to be more appropiate in relation to these 97% so-called "confirmed exoplanets" than the description used earlier on the wikipedia page when it says: "In several cases, multiple planets have been observed around a star.[7]" Unless those cases are part of the mysterious 3% that doesn't seem very clear to me what type of evidence that represents in comparison to words such as "confirmed" (as a certainty, that is what the word confirms means, so we're talking conclusive evidence rather than indirect evidence then), and "observed". The word "indirect" is used a couple of times on the wikipage:

Some exoplanets have been imaged directly by telescopes, but the vast majority have been detected through indirect methods, such as the transit method and the radial-velocity method. ...

Confirmed discoveries

... Technological advances, most notably in high-resolution spectroscopy, led to the rapid detection of many new exoplanets: astronomers could detect exoplanets indirectly by measuring their gravitational influence on the motion of their host stars. More extrasolar planets were later detected by observing the variation in a star's apparent luminosity as an orbiting planet transited in front of it.

The last thing also being best described by the term "indirect evidence" as it is appropiately used in the 1990 article I used on page 6. We can only hope that by "imaged directly by telescopes" they are not actually referring to "observing the variation in a star's apparent luminosity", cause that would just add yet another level of spin.The red herring question remains, has the situation really changed that much since then? Nevertheless, it remains a possible distraction from the main points of that article. So what good can come from asking someone to be clear about the distinction line between indirect evidence and conclusive evidence who has no intention of doing so and has been instructed (confused, misled, conditioned, taught) by others who are also bent on blurring that line by the way they spin words, labels and terminologies together in a rather confusing, misleading and sometimes even contradictory manner?

As they hold the Joker-card of the Agnostic Code behind their back ready to appeal to whenever confronted with inconvenient facts/certainties/truths/realities that conclusively prove certain ideas and storylines to be impossibilities.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: whereislogic

and yet - you ignore the fact that " we " have directly imaged some of the exoplanets

but hey

red herrings are there to be ignored.

a reply to: whereislogic

thats not an " argument " - thats your willfull ignorance and evasiveness

primer

take your head out your arse

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Prune juice is better.

🤣

a reply to: Joecroft

Anyway…you do realize I just refuted your OP lol

I realize nothing of the kind

Damn for a second I thought you were smart.

Please tell me how my equation refutes my entire thread?