Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

ET and Drake (to Matthew)

Expand Messages
  • DBWILLIS@aol.com
    Matthew wrote:
    Message 1 of 12 , Nov 5, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Matthew wrote:

      <<There are many parameters in this Drake equation. David
      tries to force the conclusion 'the parameter that says
      evolution happens is wrong.' But this is not the only
      conclusion. If another parameter is wrong, then the result
      would be the same (no alien boombox).

      My opinion is that there is no alien boombox because there
      are no aliens because evolution does not happen. But using
      the Drake equation seems a weak argument to 'prove' this
      conclusion. I do not say to throw the argument away, but it
      seems to lack force.>>

      You have underestimated what considerations went into the calculation. You
      are correct that all the assumptions have to be considered as the possible cause
      of no contact with ET. The absence of any signals is not automatic proof
      that the evolution factors are the culprit. It could be others. Certainly Sagan
      and Drake did not consider their evolutionary assumptions to be flawed. Of
      course they also expected to hear ETs too...and they haven't! But what you
      miss is that those ev's who performed the calculation built into their factors
      their best estimate of how many of those civ's which attained intelligence would
      have reached the level technological advance of causing radio signals. That
      was one of the 8 or 9 factors! ALL the civ's we know of (ours) have figured
      out how to use radio, but that doesn't mean all would. But given intelligence,
      and the facts of physics, Sagan and Drake considered that many
      technologically advanced civ's would choose radio as a means of communication, even if only
      on their own planet. I don't remember exactly what factor was assumed but it
      was not 1 (100% likely). They reasoned that once intelligence was attained
      soon they would understand how to use radio, and even if their purpose was NOT
      to send out signals to intentionally reach other civ's there would be
      unintentional leakage of signals into space which we should be able to observe. AND
      the ETs would be able to observe OURS (produced in the past century or so).
      Probably some would indeed choose to intentionally send out beacons announcing
      their presence like our own has. So Matthew, what percentage of civ's that
      exist 10,000 years on average do YOU think would discover and use radio waves?
      50% ONLY 50%? Ok. That means "only" 5 MILLION civilizations are out there
      broadcasting.

      But forget about radio, Matthew. Ask the question why, if there have been
      life-supporting planets in our galaxy for 10 billions years (or whatever) why is
      it that in all that time, with all those opportunities for life and
      intelligence evolving...why has not ONE civilization...not 10 MILLION, but JUST
      ONE...succeeded in figuring out how to travel across a galaxy (or even partway, if
      there is a civ nearer to us) and begin to colonize or at least explore other
      places? Our civ is probably 10,000 years or maybe at the most 100,000 years from
      being at that point ourselves. Why didn't even ONE other civ beat us by
      100,000 years and already have done that?

      David Willis




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • mathewmaury
      ... David s observation of my underestimation is likely true. My conclusion of the Drake equation is that at least one of the parameters is wrong. This is also
      Message 2 of 12 , Nov 5, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- David wrote:
        > You have underestimated what considerations went into the
        > calculation. You are correct that all the assumptions have
        > to be considered as the possible cause of no contact with
        > ET. The absence of any signals is not automatic proof that
        > the evolution factors are the culprit. It could be others.

        David's observation of my underestimation is likely true.
        My conclusion of the Drake equation is that at least one
        of the parameters is wrong. This is also David's conclusion.
        And Atheist Todd's conclusion. And Robert's conclusion.
        Each of us may have a different idea of which parameters are
        faulty. But the problem is overparameterized with one equation
        and multiple unknowns. There is not a unique solution.

        > Certainly Sagan and Drake did not consider their
        > evolutionary assumptions to be flawed.

        Sagan was a fool. Sagan also did not consider his atheism to
        be a mistake. But he knows better now; too late. (The only
        Drake I am familiar with was a nautical pioneer prior to
        Cmdr. Maury.)

        > Ask the question why, if there have been life-supporting
        > planets in our galaxy for 10 billions years (or whatever)
        > [...] Why didn't even ONE other civ beat us by 100,000 years
        > and already have done that?

        Granting the wild assumption (unproven, no evidence) of
        alien life, my answer to the question is 'someone has to be
        first'.

        As an intellectual excercise, would it not fit the Drake
        equation for many 'civs' to rise up, radio, and die off?
        Unless their radio waves arrive here while we are listening,
        we do not hear them. They may have come and gone already!
        Would our detection apparatus find any tracks of past passed
        radio broadcasts?

        But I find such impossible hypothetical situations unpleasant
        to discuss. The speculation is fruitless because aliens do
        not exist because they were not created. My participation in
        this topic is in consideration of the logic and reasons
        behind David's ardent argument.

        Apparently Sagan helped develop the parameters and
        accepted this equation. What was his answer to David's
        argument? I never heard that he denied the validity of the
        equation. His conclusion (deduced from his actions) seemed
        to be 'earthlings must listen harder for alien top 40'. If
        the Drake equation is so devastating to evolutionists, why
        did Sagan continue to champion it while he lived?
      • rlbaty50
        ... That kinda struck me as having relevance in a much broader since and as something having to do with what David Willis hit me up with regarding that
        Message 3 of 12 , Nov 6, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "mathewmaury"
          <sqi7o0hh02@s...> wrote, in part:

          > If the Drake equation is so devastating to
          > evolutionists, why did Sagan continue to champion
          > it while he lived?

          That kinda struck me as having relevance in a much broader since and
          as something having to do with what David Willis hit me up with
          regarding that equation, my competence and my integrity. (It also
          reminded me of the kind of reaction I got in days gone by when I
          suggested I might know enough to question Bert's Maury claims)

          If the "young-earth, creation-science" movement has the scientific
          goods so devasting to the old-earth types, why are the old-earth
          types more successful than ever and why do "young-earth, creation-
          science" types come off as cultists with ever so devoted followers?

          I think it has something to do with the recent stunt Willis tried to
          put over here. He would have me, a real Bozo when it comes to his
          much-touted statistics, believe he's got the goods on Todd and I
          should just take his word for it (kinda like all the folks who just
          took Bert's word for that Maury statue at the Naval Academy) and just
          reject any opposition that he can stick the label of "atheist"
          or "evolutionist" on.

          Seems to me that "young-earth, creation-science" is popular because
          of the cult-like leaders' success in marketing to the masses of
          scientific illiterates like me. However, like Todd has testified to,
          there seems to be a point in the life of some where they ask: "If
          this is so devasting to legitimate science, why doesn't legitimate
          science catch on and convert to 'young-earth, creation-science'?"

          The answer, of course, has historically been that the "young-earth,
          creation-science" claims are not what Willis and Thompson and others
          make them out to be.

          I've made my "feeble attempt" at testing such premises (i.e. can
          anyone say "moon-dust", "Maury", "Mammoths" and "Moths"). You pretty
          much know my conclusions.

          That being the case, I am not just real into the idea of having to
          chase (at least not very far) Willis' latest rabbit having to do with
          Drake, not the sailor.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty
        • DBWILLIS@aol.com
          In a message dated 11/7/03 8:43:04 AM US Eastern Standard Time, ... Once again you lie. I did not misrepresent the equation. I accepted your quibble that the
          Message 4 of 12 , Nov 7, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 11/7/03 8:43:04 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
            Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com writes:


            > You misrepresented
            > the Drake Equation (as you acknowledged you did), and you have
            > misrepresented the scientific presentations of the Drake Equation

            Once again you lie.

            I did not misrepresent the equation. I accepted your quibble that the
            equation itself is only a framework...but it was used by evolutionists, using THEIR
            ASSUMPTIONS to arrive at a conclusion as to whether we should expect LARGE
            AMOUNTS of ETI civ's USING RADIO out there. Their answer was YES! But we don't
            hear anything, so some part of the assumptions plugged into that equation are
            wrong. If it is NOT the assumption that life arises from non-life and then
            evolves (YOUR BELIEF...which happened, according to you almost immediately after
            the planet cooled), then it must be one or more of the other assumptions. I
            have asked you to tell us which other one is flawed...and what it SHOULD be
            and what result that would give...but you cower away from doing that for us...as
            usual.

            >>I have already
            explained to you at least twice (and which the online articles that I
            cited proved), scientists approach the issue using a variety of
            assumptions. All you have done is to *purposely ignore* this fact.
            >>

            I addressed those articles. You tried to pull a fast one and hope no one
            would read them. What is your reply to my review of those articles? You have
            PURPOSELY IGNORED that! Don't just take the wimp's way out and do a Google
            search and then point to some article. We are here to discuss among ourselves.
            Let's hear YOUR argument.

            >>The
            reason your argument is a dead horse is because its being based on a
            false premise (actually two false premises) makes it a bad argument.
            >>

            Please tell me what my false premise is.

            Look Todd. If you don't like my use of the Drake equation, then toss it out.
            Forget the equation itself, it is only a tool for reference. YOU just tell
            us whether, if evolution is true, we SHOULD have many thousands of other ETI
            civ's out there...just in our own galaxy, not to mention in other galaxies. If
            you can say "no" with a straight face, then you have proved you are a
            religionist, not a scientist. The position you have taken has implications, and one
            of those is that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that if life arose
            here and then evolved, then if there are other places like this one in our
            galaxy, it should have happened before. THAT is the scientific conclusion. You
            have as much as agreed with me on that, when you said IF there were no other
            ETI's in our galaxy it would affect your atheism.

            >>> IF you had some magical ability or scientific tool to examine
            > every inch of our galaxy for evidence of ETI life...and found
            > none, would that impact on your belief in abiogenesis and
            > macro-evolution? Yes or no? If it would not, then your atheism
            > is a religion, not a scientific conclusion.

            Yes, of course it would. This is what science is all about. Examining
            the real world.>>


            So, why then is the silence from space not affecting to you? What is your
            explanation? Why not tentatively at least admit that so far the evidence here
            favors the idea that the evolutionary assumptions are not valid? If you are
            honest, you have to at least chalk that up as a plus for the theist view. In
            this case, the science favors the anti-evolutionary view. Are you honest and
            secure enough to say that...at least in this one limited area of inquiry?

            David Willis






            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • DBWILLIS@aol.com
            In a message dated 11/7/03 8:43:04 AM US Eastern Standard Time, ... Well, I could see this as rational. IF you had some way to detect life (but not
            Message 5 of 12 , Nov 7, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 11/7/03 8:43:04 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
              Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com writes:


              > Sorry, but I read David's term "ETI life" as "ET life." Technically
              > speaking, I think there would be some difference in how I would
              > consider this. For example, what if we were to find several planets
              > in our galaxy (say, exactly 23) with life on them - but no
              > intelligent life. In that kind of case it would actually have little
              > impact on my current perspective on abiogenesis.
              >
              > As far as macroevolution is concerned, we already have such relevant
              > information as that from the the fossil record and from comparitive
              > genetics studies that substantiate macroevolution.

              Well, I could see this as rational. IF you had some way to detect life (but
              not intelligent life) elsewhere, it leave the question open...one could
              suggest either that creation happened or life arose from non-life atheistically.
              (BTW, Robert still doesn't get it...you cannot say that an theist believes in
              life from non-life, because GOD, IF HE EXISTS IS ALIVE). Depending on how long
              it seemed that life had been present, it may still call into question whether
              the 2nd idea of atheistic evolution (once life arises, it evolves into higher
              forms, with the fittest surviving) is true.

              And of course so far, we have not found any legitimate evidence even of
              microbial life elsewhere...when according to ev's it SHOULD be there. It is hard
              to imagine some way to detect non-intelligent life outside our solar system
              though, so we can only for now hunt for ETI's. The absence of ETI's in our own
              solar system is not really impactful, because we could be just talking here
              about our being "lucky" or as Matthew said, "somebody has to be first." Of
              course, when we are talking about BILLIONS of star systems in our galaxy, the
              numbers begin to work in favor of the creationist view. When it comes to our solar
              system it is fair to say that the jury is still out on whether there is other
              life out there...but NOT other radio-literate ETI life. We would have
              already detected radio sources elsewhere in the solar system. We can pretty
              confidently say that we are indeed the only radio literate civ. in our solar system.
              AND the evidence for now says that is true also of our galaxy. The fact that
              we are alone in our solar system does not impact much on whether the
              evolutionary assumptions of Drake are true. One could reasonable say that the sample
              (of the galaxy or universe) is not complete enough. But we HAVE sampled LARGE
              amounts of data in our galaxy to see if there are ANY other radio users out
              there, when there SHOULD be...and so far the answer is NO. So one should at
              some point conclude that evolution and abiogenesis is NOT true.

              Todd said that IF one could have a magical ability or tool to KNOW that, he
              would be affected. Well, we have a very GOOD tool right now...radio telescopes
              (and also optical telescopes which are searching for laser light
              communication sources...also with a negative result). And so far the data from that tool
              favors creation and disfavors atheism. Todd and others like him only
              discredit themselves by not acknowledging at least that fair tentative SCIENTIFIC
              conclusion.

              David Willis



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • DBWILLIS@aol.com
              In a message dated 11/7/03 12:12:14 PM US Eastern Standard Time, DBWILLIS ... I said an when I meant a ...I just wanted to be clear that I meant a THEIST ,
              Message 6 of 12 , Nov 7, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 11/7/03 12:12:14 PM US Eastern Standard Time, DBWILLIS
                writes:


                > (BTW, Robert still doesn't get it...you cannot say that an theist believes
                > in life from non-life, because GOD, IF HE EXISTS IS ALIVE).

                I said "an" when I meant "a"...I just wanted to be clear that I meant "a
                THEIST", and not "an atheist." Theists, by definition do NOT believe in life from
                non-life. Robert as usual is confused. If life comes from God it does NOT
                come from non-life!

                DW


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • rlbaty50
                ... I think it rather that David is the one confused on the point, as he appears to have been when he enticed me into his abiogenesis issue. I thought we had
                Message 7 of 12 , Nov 7, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, DBWILLIS@a... wrote, in part:

                  > (BTW, Robert still doesn't get it...you cannot say
                  > that a theist believes in life from non-life, because
                  > GOD, IF HE EXISTS IS ALIVE).

                  > Robert as usual is confused. If life comes from God it
                  > does NOT come from non-life!

                  I think it rather that David is the one confused on the point, as he
                  appears to have been when he enticed me into his abiogenesis issue.
                  I thought we had cleared up some of his misguided notions on that;
                  maybe not!

                  I figure that when we are talking this scientific stuff it is
                  understood we are talking about the stuff here, the physical stuff
                  that scientists get all wrapped up with.

                  Pasteur's thing didn't have a thing to do with the origin of life;
                  didn't we all finally agree on that. Maybe David needs to revisit
                  that discussion.

                  In that context, the theist and atheist are on the same page as far
                  as I can tell. Life came from non-life (i.e. from dust of the
                  ground, dead dust, to a man, a living soul).

                  The atheist believes the same thing only the dust may be thought to
                  have been something else and the stimilus changing dead matter into
                  living matter may be somewhat different for the theist and the
                  atheist. Of course, the time frame is a bit different between the
                  two views as well.

                  But, scientifically, they're both on the same page as far as
                  abiogeneis in the scientific sense. Of course, if the theist (i.e.
                  David Willis) is going to be throwing around "biogenesis"
                  and "abiogenesis" in the metaphysical sense, doesn't he need to warn
                  his hearers that he's not talking science when he uses those
                  scientific terms?

                  That's kinda what my interests center around. Getting these guys to
                  quit trying to bamboozle me with that scientific stuff as if they
                  knew what they are talking about. I have tested them (can anyone
                  say "Maury", "moon-dust", "mammoths", "moths"?) and found them
                  wanting. David Willis has proved himself no exception, and I'm not
                  inclined to chase his rabbits very far, as evident in my present
                  limited involvement in those things he thinks does something for
                  his "young-earth, creation-science" perspective.

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty
                • David Willis
                  Ok Robert, let s try this again... Do YOU believe (as does Todd and other atheists) that inanimate forces acting on inanimate matter can (or did) produce life?
                  Message 8 of 12 , Nov 7, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Ok Robert, let's try this again...

                    Do YOU believe (as does Todd and other atheists) that inanimate
                    forces acting on inanimate matter can (or did) produce life? I
                    say, "no." How about you? Yes or no?

                    IF you say "no" then you believe that life cannot come from non-
                    life...not without an act of God intervening...which is exactly THE
                    POINT!!! I say God is alive...do you? If you say "yes" and if you
                    say that He produced life, then you agree that life only comes from
                    life, and NOT from inanimate forces acting on inanimate matter.

                    You are a real piece of work, Robert! Go ahead and BECOME an
                    atheist...you are of no use to God as you are!

                    DW
                  • Todd S. Greene
                    ... Hmmm.... There are a lot of theistic evolutionists - even ones, like Howard J. Van Till, who are members of evangelical churches - who teach that there is
                    Message 9 of 12 , Nov 7, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In Maury_and_Baty, David Willis wrote (post #2743):
                      > Ok Robert, let's try this again...
                      >
                      > Do YOU believe (as does Todd and other atheists) that inanimate
                      > forces acting on inanimate matter can (or did) produce life? I
                      > say, "no." How about you? Yes or no?
                      >
                      > IF you say "no" then you believe that life cannot come from non-
                      > life...not without an act of God intervening...which is exactly
                      > THE POINT!!! I say God is alive...do you? If you say "yes" and if
                      > you say that He produced life, then you agree that life only
                      > comes from life, and NOT from inanimate forces acting on
                      > inanimate matter.
                      >
                      > You are a real piece of work, Robert! Go ahead and BECOME an
                      > atheist...you are of no use to God as you are!

                      Hmmm.... There are a lot of theistic evolutionists - even ones, like
                      Howard J. Van Till, who are members of evangelical churches - who
                      teach that there is no necessary contradiction between abiogenesis
                      (living organisms developing from nonliving substances by natural
                      processes) and orthodox Christian belief in God.

                      But David Willis is totally stuck in his 18th century prejudice-
                      pandering rhetoric, so I doubt that a simple fact like this will stop
                      him.

                      Chuckling,
                      Todd S. Greene
                      http://www.creationism.cc/
                    • David Willis
                      ... Howard J. Van Till, who are members of evangelical churches - who teach that there is no necessary contradiction between abiogenesis (living organisms
                      Message 10 of 12 , Nov 7, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >>Hmmm.... There are a lot of theistic evolutionists - even ones, like
                        Howard J. Van Till, who are members of evangelical churches - who
                        teach that there is no necessary contradiction between abiogenesis
                        (living organisms developing from nonliving substances by natural
                        processes) and orthodox Christian belief in God.>>

                        How do you figure that if God causes life, that is "by natural
                        processes?" We are discussing the possibility/probability of life
                        coming from non-life WITHOUT God acting.

                        DW
                      • Todd S. Greene
                        ... [Todd Greene wrote:] ... Hi, David. First of all, you have taken my statement out of context. What you tried to do is to imply that anyone who accepts the
                        Message 11 of 12 , Nov 7, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In Maury_and_Baty, David Willis wrote (post #2745):
                          [Todd Greene wrote:]
                          >> Hmmm.... There are a lot of theistic evolutionists - even ones,
                          >> like Howard J. Van Till, who are members of evangelical churches
                          >> - who teach that there is no necessary contradiction between
                          >> abiogenesis (living organisms developing from nonliving
                          >> substances by natural processes) and orthodox Christian belief
                          >> in God.
                          >
                          > How do you figure that if God causes life, that is "by natural
                          > processes?" We are discussing the possibility/probability of
                          > life coming from non-life WITHOUT God acting.

                          Hi, David.

                          First of all, you have taken my statement out of context. What you
                          tried to do is to imply that anyone who accepts the idea of
                          abiogenesis must be an atheist. What I was pointing out, by example,
                          is that this is simply incorrect since there are in fact a number of
                          theistic evolutionists (including some evangelical Christians) who
                          disagree with you. (Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist at Brown
                          University, is another example of such a Christian theistic
                          evolutionist, but he is not an evangelical Christian.)

                          Second, in response to your question, if a person accepts the idea
                          that a thunderstorm develops by natural meteorological processes,
                          instead of by divine fiat, does acceptance of this idea of things
                          developing by natural processes necessarily contradict orthodox
                          Christian belief in God. The obvious answer is, of course not!

                          Regards,
                          Todd S. Greene
                          http://www.creationism.cc/
                        • DBWILLIS@aol.com
                          In a message dated 11/7/03 11:50:42 AM US Eastern Standard Time, DBWILLIS ... This question deserves an answer, Todd. You were honest enough to admit that
                          Message 12 of 12 , Nov 10, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In a message dated 11/7/03 11:50:42 AM US Eastern Standard Time, DBWILLIS
                            writes:


                            > >>> IF you had some magical ability or scientific tool to examine
                            > > every inch of our galaxy for evidence of ETI life...and found
                            > > none, would that impact on your belief in abiogenesis and
                            > > macro-evolution? Yes or no? If it would not, then your atheism
                            > > is a religion, not a scientific conclusion.
                            >
                            > Yes, of course it would. This is what science is all about. Examining
                            > the real world.>>
                            >
                            >
                            > So, why then is the silence from space not affecting to you? What is your
                            > explanation? Why not tentatively at least admit that so far the evidence here
                            > favors the idea that the evolutionary assumptions are not valid? If you are
                            > honest, you have to at least chalk that up as a plus for the theist view.
                            > In this case, the science favors the anti-evolutionary view. Are you honest
                            > and secure enough to say that...at least in this one limited area of inquiry?
                            >
                            > David Willis
                            >

                            This question deserves an answer, Todd. You were honest enough to admit that
                            absence of other ETIs, if known by you, WOULD impact you. You apparently
                            agree they SHOULD be "out there", probably in great numbers. But the evidence so
                            far says there are no ETI civs out there. You should be impacted by that
                            evidence. It is good solid scientific evidence. Why aren't you? I believe the
                            answer is your faith in atheism, not as science but as a religion. And your
                            reticence to have faith in God, because that implies you have an obligation to
                            obey your Creator. If that is not the reason, what is?

                            DW


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.