I hope someone is taking notes, there's enough material here for a PhD !

I was thinking the same thing. :-)

---

#resist

if darwin is right why is there no fossils that show any half way stage of any animal. we have dinosaur fossils !

Hi Bill, you may want to edit that statement before people jump all over it.

We could sit here all day and talk about the very fossils you claim don't exist.

:-)

And welcome to seti@home if I haven't said it yet.

---

#resist

[snip]
If one had read the book "The Privileged Planet" one would understand that life is indeed a rare thing. And the more variables added to Drakes Equation only ups the odds for Design and lowers the odds for chance. If chance was the reasons then chance would have happened more then once in each galaxy we see.

The full post here had 3 references to the Drake equation, and despite a more recent post saying my question had been answered, there appears to be no record of an answer (in this thread or this one, where the question was first asked) to the question:

"Who asserts that the Drake equation is scientifically valid?"

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

where are they some birds change a bit and horses change abit but notmonkey or ape to me or anyone i know and are they not evolving now i can see this and i have a low iq

To the contrary, everything is always evolving. This shows as tiny genetic changes from one generation to the next.

What you are overlooking is that it takes HUGE spans of time for real noticeable changes to be seen.

If you want an example of change that has happened quicker, just look at the variation in breeds of domestic dog.

---

#resist

If you are an Astronomer, it may be just that easy to get to a specific conclusion about the evolvment of the Universe and the possible existence of other intelligent civilizations at other places than our own solar system.

If you rather are an anthropologist, my guess is that you may be able to better explain Charles Darwin's theories regarding the evolution of species by means of natural selection (and competition).

In the end, these two different subjects may relate or interconnect with each other, being just two elements taking part of a greater design in nature.

Again, we are back to the question about God being the creator of things and whether God exists at all.

If so, he created everything in just six days and took the seventh day off.

@ bobby. Sorry. I was distracted by a phone call here and lost out of it.

I need to go back and read the thread once more. Anyway, where is your reference to the Drake equation in all of this?

My guess is that your statement is reflecting a self-referential or recursic logic postulation.

if darwin is right why is there no fossils that show any half way stage of any animal. we have dinosaur fossils !

Why isn't there a fossil of everything that ever lived?

---

where are they some birds change a bit and horses change abit but notmonkey or ape to me or anyone i know and are they not evolving now i can see this and i have a low iq

The Archaeopteryx, discovered in 1861, represents a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.

...and here's a list of more transitional fossils showing signs of evolution.

If you are an Astronomer, it may be just that easy to get to a specific conclusion about the evolvment of the Universe and the possible existence of other intelligent civilizations at other places than our own solar system.

If you rather are an anthropologist, my guess is that you may be able to better explain Charles Darwin's theories regarding the evolution of species by means of natural selection (and competition).

In the end, these two different subjects may relate or interconnect with each other, being just two elements taking part of a greater design in nature.

Yes, the two professions are joined by science to explain our existence. Its the part where you suggest they are "taking part of a greater design in nature" that is an assumption unsupported by observation.

Again, we are back to the question about God being the creator of things and whether God exists at all.

If so, he created everything in just six days and took the seventh day off.

Can you prove this?

Unfortunately for believers, Charles' observations fly in the face of Creationism, leaving many faithful to either hate Charles' claims as being false, or to try to insist, as ID and Guy do, that Darwinism is compatible with their views on creationism, renamed "intelligent design". Basically it re-packages Darwin's observations as faith and asserts a Grand Designer without any reason to come to that conclusion.

KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) applies. There is no need to bring in a Rube Goldberg contraption of a designer.

At least in my experience if there are two possible ways something happened, one complex, one simple, the simple way is the way it actually happened.

---

Unfortunately for believers, Charles' observations fly in the face of Creationism, leaving many faithful to either hate Charles' claims as being false, or to try to insist, as ID and Guy do, that Darwinism is compatible with their views on creationism, renamed "intelligent design". Basically it re-packages Darwin's observations as faith and asserts a Grand Designer without any reason to come to that conclusion.

KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) applies. There is no need to bring in a Rube Goldberg contraption of a designer.

At least in my experience if there are two possible ways something happened, one complex, one simple, the simple way is the way it actually happened.

Occam's Razor... agreed.

I guess we do not have seven fingers and seven toes.

I know I had a couple of examples regarding this, but I will need to ponder a little bit about it first.

Here is the reference to Drake's equation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Trying to copy and paste the equation in the text, but this apparently is not working.

Yes. Numbers is just one possibility out of several others. We also find patterns and symmetries in nature which is either thought of as being random in nature or being close to perfect (like the spiral galaxy NGC 488).

I guess we do not have seven fingers and seven toes.

If God created the Heavens and Earth in seven days, one would think seven would be a great number to base Design on.

I know I had a couple of examples regarding this, but I will need to ponder a little bit about it first.

Here is the reference to Drake's equation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Trying to copy and paste the equation in the text, but this apparently is not working.

Yes, most of us are aware of Drake's equation, but it has been asked who asserts that it is scientifically valid?

Yes. Numbers is just one possibility out of several others. We also find patterns and symmetries in nature which is either thought of as being random in nature or being close to perfect (like the spiral galaxy NGC 488).

Agreed, we do notice patterns and symmetries found in nature, but these are human concepts and are no more valid than seeing "faces" in random, non-human objects such as landscapes or the front grill of cars.

@ bobby. Sorry. I was distracted by a phone call here and lost out of it.

I need to go back and read the thread once more. Anyway, where is your reference to the Drake equation in all of this?

My guess is that your statement is reflecting a self-referential or recursic logic postulation.

My question was a response to a post by ID who has made several claims about the Drake equation.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

The understanding we have regarding nature is based on our understanding of things as they appear to us as well as our capabilities.

When I first had a look at the Drake equation, I guessed I would not be able to comprehend it. But, instead, it took me just a half hour, or maybe just 20 minutes in order to comprehend its meaning. This equation is very plain and straighforward and I find it a little difficult to disagree with it.

If some thought or imagined member belonging to a possible Category 1 civilization was asked the same questions being posted here, this member would obviously return a different answer to many things that we are currently able to do ourselves. Possibly this member may be asking some questions on his/her own, like whether there may exist parallell Universes, whether the Drake equation is correct as it is currently stated, or whether there is one and only divine God being the creator of everything in existence.

We should remember that everything started with the Big Bang (call it the creation of the Universe).

Do we take the Big Bang for granted, or is this still only a theory as well?

What is the difference or similarity between evolvment and natural selection (survival of the fittest)?

When I first had a look at the Drake equation, I guessed I would not be able to comprehend it. But, instead, it took me just a half hour, or maybe just 20 minutes in order to comprehend its meaning. This equation is very plain and straighforward and I find it a little difficult to disagree with it.

That you find it difficult to disagree with doesn't make it scientifically valid.

The understanding we have regarding nature is based on our understanding of things as they appear to us as well as our capabilities.

If some thought or imagined member belonging to a possible Category 1 civilization was asked the same questions being posted here, this member would obviously return a different answer to many things that we are currently able to do ourselves. Possibly this member may be asking some questions on his/her own, like whether there may exist parallell Universes, whether the Drake equation is correct as it is currently stated, or whether there is one and only divine God being the creator of everything in existence.

Sure, a Category 1 civilization could have a different answer, but see SciManStev's post above about how intelligence differs from species to species, and in this case, from civilization level to civilization level. I suppose it would depend on who you ask from that Category 1 civilization and their level of intelligence as to what answer they would give.

We should remember that everything started with the Big Bang (call it the creation of the Universe).

Do we take the Big Bang for granted, or is this still only a theory as well?

Yes, the Big Bang is still a Theory. So is the theory of gravity. So is the theory of evolution. All of science is strictly theories, because science acknowledges that things can change depending on new data revealed.

What is the difference or similarity between evolvment and natural selection (survival of the fittest)?

Evolution involves random changes or mutations to a species, as said previously, that may be beneficial, indifferent, or detrimental to a species.

Natural selection determines which mutations are beneficial or detrimental.

Unfortunately for believers, Charles' observations fly in the face of Creationism, leaving many faithful to either hate Charles' claims as being false, or to try to insist, as ID and Guy do, that Darwinism is compatible with their views on creationism, renamed "intelligent design". Basically it re-packages Darwin's observations as faith and asserts a Grand Designer without any reason to come to that conclusion.

KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) applies. There is no need to bring in a Rube Goldberg contraption of a designer.

At least in my experience if there are two possible ways something happened, one complex, one simple, the simple way is the way it actually happened.

Occam's Razor... agreed.

And Solomonoff proved the razor.

---

Anyway, as bobby stated earlier, a theory is just a hypothesis.

What about the opposite "fact"? Is not what we always want in the field of science a conclusion, or proof regarding one or more specific things?

A mathematical equation is supposed to be a proof, but is it still just a hypothesis?

Can Einstein's E=mc2 be proven, or is this equation just a hypothesis?

Also here, facts can be derived by means of observation. Are they always provable by means of observation or do they end up becoming just a hypothesis?

Observation is either preceded or followed up by (new) theories. In most cases certain theories become proven by means of verification at the same time as new theories regarding the same subject emerges bases on renewed or continuous observation. It is an ongoing story or trend which presumably never seems to end. It may appear that for certain sciences there may not be the possibility of making a final conclusion regarding the necessary facts as they are given.

Can Einstein's E=mc2 be proven, or is this equation just a hypothesis?

It is proven every day in any exo-thermic chemical reaction. Measure the heat created and the weight reduction of the components mixed together and you will prove the equation. Assuming mathematics is consistant in it's realm of application you can also prove it with a thought experiment just as Einstein did. A valid mathematical proof is a proof in real life; anyone who has taught or understood physics knows this really well.