The Drake Equation Fallacy

originally posted by: turbonium1

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??

Implying that these videos are somehow invalid because the video doesn't show footage that appeals to your taste?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: carsforkids
Sorry I can speculate and postulate about God all I want.
As much as you wish you were a tyrant and could stop me
from showing the perfect sense of it all you can't. Why you
are so determined to be completely one hundred percent wrong
about something so important is on you. But you not
wanting others to read for themselves what they will never
read or hear any where else is fanatical. I got you're goat pal and
you've made it obvious. You want to drag others down with you
as far as I'm concerned. Science has nothing to do with proving
the existence of God and yet the only way you know how to argue
is thru science.

You must be joking!

Waaaaaaaa! Big mean atheist just debunked my argument. Waaaaaaaaaaaa!

Grow up, kid. You sound like an ass clown. I never said you aren't allowed to speculate, I'm just refuting the lie that your speculation is probable or factual. It's not. It's your personal beliefs, and that's fine if you want to believe it, but your constant lies and projection is seriously getting old. You are making yourself look more childish with every comment you post now. It's like sniveling 6 year old whining about not being giving a cookie. You have to earn that cookie, kiddo. Whining like a baby isn't an argument.

This is just a convoluted backward assed attempt to justify your own
lack of reason for disbelief and unwarranted determination to conflate
the very simple point of this thread. That even one of your own cheer
leaders conceded t as valid and I quote " Well you aren't wrong".
Using stupid accusations
highly unintelligent insults and lying about ridiculous claims of lying.

You aren't fit for ATS in my judgement.

You couldn't possibly be anything close to a scientist because a real scientist
knows enough not to be such a close minded arrogant mule bent on having
his own spoiled baby way! While complaining redundantly about the stupidity
of a thread you yourself are quite obviously (to every reader) somehow
psycho pathetically obsessed with.

I've never seen anyone on ATS make a bigger ass out of themselves
and get away it. In fact I don't understand how the mods have let
either one of us or this thread continue. But God made sure amazing things
were possible didn't he Barcs? I suggest you really need to get over yourself
because you don't even have your own well being figured out Mr. Humble Pie.

a reply to: whereislogic

What do exoplanets have to do with being agnostic?

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.

Like literally talking a planet into existence and building an entire ecosystem including complex vertebrates from scratch in just seven days? Because why wouldn't we factor a completely untested hypothesis into an equation that was literally just invented for fun.

for any one wondering - is there any merit to turbo-trolls babblings about rocket launches

simply ask it - one question :

why do you expect to see a rocket asscend all the way to orbit - when you cannot show a cruise ship sailing to a point 400km [ or more ] away ?

a reply to: TzarChasm

An intelligent designer creating the cosmos, earth, and biological life in 7 days is way more likely than it all having come to be by random chance. Random chance cannot create even the most basic microbe, let alone perfect planetary orbit equilibrium or human beings.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

why do you expect to see a rocket asscend all the way to orbit - when you cannot show a cruise ship sailing to a point 400km [ or more ] away ?

Be careful I thought I based this thread on common sense of that nature.

a reply to: cooperton

Technically "days" are a human construction. Without the cosmos, Earth, Sun and mankind the concept of mechanical time based on celestial motion would not exist.

Sorry, i'm just not big on literal interpretations of scripture.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Curvature of the Earth prevents one of those observations, just thought i'd help clarify that for Turbo. Not sure of optimum ascent angle to achieve orbit but i'd imagine it should be possible to video the entire trip from a fixed terrestrial location, anyone with a good understanding of flight dynamics who can answer that?

I did find this information however i would need to do more research and calculations based on the information contained here:

Orbital Spaceflight

You would also need to consider:

Gravity Turn

a reply to: whereislogic

A few have been directly imaged.

exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu...

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

He continues:

"Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors."

What about Johannes Kepler:

“The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics.”

a reply to: Grenade

By definition of the laws that uphold it, the universe is intelligent.

a reply to: cooperton


Sure but a day is a measurement of the rotation of the Earth. How could days exist before the Earth if that’s the case?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

What do exoplanets have to do with being agnostic?

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.

That remark was related to something I mentioned about an agnostic philosophy towards the end of the paragraph that starts with "As James Tour ..." in my comment to ignorant_ape just before the comment you responded to.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Grenade

By definition of the laws that uphold it, the universe is intelligent.

It might just be that the 'laws' that appear to be such are just naturally occurring and intelligence has nothing to do with it.
I could say that the fact that we exist does show that the universe is intelligent (as an emergent property) and we are the proof. However when I look around me at society and the human condition I'm not so sure.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Grenade

By definition of the laws that uphold it, the universe is intelligent.

Would you mind posting those laws for us and explaining how they prove the universe is intelligent?

originally posted by: midicon

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Grenade

By definition of the laws that uphold it, the universe is intelligent.

It might just be that the 'laws' that appear to be such are just naturally occurring and intelligence has nothing to do with it.
I could say that the fact that we exist does show that the universe is intelligent (as an emergent property) and we are the proof. However when I look around me at society and the human condition I'm not so sure.

Indeed, it seems to me that humans are the opposite of everything beautiful and clever about life and physics. The most breath taking examples of life on Earth have very little to do with humans, in fact you could say such beauty persists in spite of our species. Humans are proof of nothing except ego.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Well said, I can't disagree.

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

Typical BS Coop post. Repeat the same lie that you have been incessantly repeating for the entire thread despite being refuted several times and include an irrelevant quote mine as if it bolsters your position. This is why people laugh at creationists... Just saying.

An intelligent designer creating the cosmos, earth, and biological life in 7 days is way more likely than it all having come to be by random chance. Random chance cannot create even the most basic microbe, let alone perfect planetary orbit equilibrium or human beings.

This is textbook intellectual dishonesty. He states his personal beliefs and opinions backed by no evidence whatsoever as the most probable explanation for the existence of the universe and then compares it to something that is not even a mechanism or explanation for the universe. "Random chance" is not a cause, it's about how likely it is for that to happen. Invoking the false dilemma of God or "random chance" as explanations for the universe is as dishonest as it gets.

Now break down the math for us all and demonstrate the probability of your god, just happening to exist eternally with no cause from nothing, just there luckily by default. You could almost call the existence of such a being random chance by your standards. Go ahead. Show us that probability LOL. Can you even make an equation even remotely similar to Drake's to explain probability of God, or are you just going to keep repeating ignorant opinions?

a reply to: turbonium1

We already explained why they don't go straight up. They have to achieve ORBIT, which can't be done just flying directly away from the planet. Upgrade your grey matter.

originally posted by: Grenade
No, you’ve taken a stance that Ptolemy wasn’t a scientist.

STRAW MAN, I did not take that stance. I said it was a red herring, and it is. You called geocentrism a scientific theory. THAT is what I was disputing. You keep diverting away from that fact.

You invoked modern scientific method while disregarding its evolution to current standards then somehow pushed that perspective onto me.

No, I'm correcting a misconception about what a scientific theory is. Do us all a favor and demonstrate your knowledge here and give me the exact scientific method as it existed in the first century. Now give it for the middle ages, and then we can compare it to the modern method and discuss the evolution.

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

originally posted by: Grenade
Geocentrism was a generally accepted scientific Theory.

That is your exact quote. You even capitalized the word "theory" as if people revered it, and it's not a logical reason to argue that modern science will be mostly wrong in a thousand years. Our standards today are exponentially greater which means the reliability of the knowledge acquired is as well. It can't be compared to 2000 years ago. It was a fallacious argument from the get go.

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

Sadly, that is not the case here. You were dead wrong in calling geocentrism a scientific theory. I'm not sure why you won't admit it. I'm seriously not trying to be a dick here, but you don't seem to be comprehending my arguments.

originally posted by: GrenadeYes, you said it, not me. So technically you are arguing with yourself.

Nope, it was a Coop red herring. You don't seem to understand that the scientific method is inexplicably connected to the development of scientific theories. You can't have one without the other.