I found a tuit.....

Your answer. Like it or not.

..quoted from ID's link above....

While I was a "believer" in ETI most of my life, I changed my mind about 10 years ago;
after I thought carefully about the astronomical and geophysical requirements for advanced
life in the universe. I found that ETI proponents were ignoring basic constraints such as high
levels of radiation in many regions of the universe.

The above is why you can't really apply mathematical equations to the problem
of trying to assess the likely hood of there being other planets capable of
supporting life. But clearly there's a very good chance that there are some
around out there. Not until you actually find another planet capable of, or
acually is, supporting life can you hope to draw-up a meaningful equation.
What would Einstein do if he was to be presented with
this equation, most probably send it back to Drake with an attached memo saying,
"Interesting at most, but does not, in my view, form the basis for any sound fundamental reasoning".
Until such times as evidence is found of a qualifying planet/s Drakes equation
has to remain meaningless. His equation needs some numbers to work with, at the
moment it only has (1) and that's us...far too little data to go on......
.....but who knows what's around the corner, may be something; may be nothing.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

I found a tuit.....

Your answer. Like it or not.

..quoted from ID's link above....

While I was a "believer" in ETI most of my life, I changed my mind about 10 years ago;
after I thought carefully about the astronomical and geophysical requirements for advanced
life in the universe. I found that ETI proponents were ignoring basic constraints such as high
levels of radiation in many regions of the universe.

The above is why you can't really apply mathematical equations to the problem
of trying to assess the likely hood of there being other planets capable of
supporting life. But clearly there's a very good chance that there are some
around out there. Not until you actually find another planet capable of, or
acually is, supporting life can you hope to draw-up a meaningful equation.
What would Einstein do if he was to be presented with
this equation, most probably send it back to Drake with an attached memo saying,
"Interesting at most, but does not, in my view, form the basis for any sound fundamental reasoning".
Until such times as evidence is found of a qualifying planet/s Drakes equation
has to remain meaningless. His equation needs some numbers to work with, at the
moment it only has (1) and that's us...far too little data to go on......
.....but who knows what's around the corner, may be something; may be nothing.

Why can't we apply apply mathematical equations to the problem?

You just did...1:1--us.

I think I know why some don't like the Drake Equation. They don't like it because it is a probability function.

I think once we find our cousins on a couple of moons in this solar system, we will get less cocky and realize the limiting factor in the Drake Equation is how long the planet supports intelligent life. If the global warmists are right, that may be a scant couple centuries.

---

ID, why do you crunch Seti?

My proof in a nutshell. {LOL} Why do all of you? Perhaps---faith? [smile]

To find evidence in answer to a question. Faith does not enter into it, either we will find evidence of ET or we won't. I hope that we will, though I'm uncertain (i.e. I have no faith that we will).

Now you have my answer, you were asked first, please provide yours.

Bobby, ID apparently will not address questions but instead would rather be obstreperous.

---

ID, why do you crunch Seti?

My proof in a nutshell. {LOL} Why do all of you? Perhaps---faith? [smile]

To find evidence in answer to a question. Faith does not enter into it, either we will find evidence of ET or we won't. I hope that we will, though I'm uncertain (i.e. I have no faith that we will).

Now you have my answer, you were asked first, please provide yours.

Bobby, ID apparently will not address questions but instead would rather be obstreperous.

Obstreperous? No, my limit is within the Constitution that I took an oath to uphold.

Pertinacious is much better.

He can wait till I get a tuit.

Why can't we apply apply mathematical equations to the problem?

You just did...1:1--us.

Well, at least my equation has a "factor" of credibility about it.

Drakes equations is built around probability, but without sufficient sample
data, containing correct hits, then his equation is mathematically unsound.
Drake built this equation around a mathematical constant, 1 that one being us
the only known data that can be proved.

It is a hypothetical equation as can be seen from the factors it uses, see
below.

where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
and
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fâ„“ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[4]

If either ne, fâ„“ or fi return a value of [0] then his equation will return a
value of [0].
The above is why you can't really apply mathematical equations to the problem
of trying to assess the likely hood of there being other planets capable of
supporting life. Simply because too many of your parameters can return a zero
and since you can't overcome that problem then you can not have an equation to
the contrary. What we have here is an equation built around assumptions and had
Drake pointed this out and drew people attention to the fact that if any one
of his unknown parameters were to return a value of zero then the equation would
fail he would not have received any merit. What he would have achieved though
is merit for being the first person to build an equation showing the probability
of there not being any intelligent life other than that found on Earth.

I don't work on probability I work on facts. Fact (1), We're here. Fact(2),
Nature replicates. Fact (3), Nature works under the laws set by the universe.
Fact(4), Nature replicates because the universe allows replication. Fact (5),
The universe replicates. Fact (6), Through replication the universe is capable
of producing similar forms of intelligent life as that to be found on Earth.
Fact (7), The universe works on actuals and not probables. Fact (8), Where man
has yet to know the actuals he formulates equations to calculate the
probables behind the actuals. Fact (9), Drakes equation returns two probables,
either some or none so it is self defeating. If one chooses to be guided by his
equation then you must accept too that the probability answer can also be zero.
Drakes equation is a calculation on hope only for it has fundamental short-comings
that some advocates choose to ignore. whilst we have these short-comings
then there is no possibility, as of yet, in being able to formulate an equation
to predict that which Drake aimed to do.

Fact (10), I'm part of seti because I'm looking for the replication of intelligent life,
in our universe, similar or if not the same, to that which
we have here on Earth.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

ID, why do you crunch Seti?

My proof in a nutshell. {LOL} Why do all of you? Perhaps---faith? [smile]

To find evidence in answer to a question. Faith does not enter into it, either we will find evidence of ET or we won't. I hope that we will, though I'm uncertain (i.e. I have no faith that we will).

Now you have my answer, you were asked first, please provide yours.

Bobby, ID apparently will not address questions but instead would rather be obstreperous.

Obstreperous? No, my limit is within the Constitution that I took an oath to uphold.

Pertinacious is much better.

He can wait till I get a tuit.

Id, what does the constitution have to do with this thread? I would love to hear your explanation.

---

ID, why do you crunch Seti?

My proof in a nutshell. {LOL} Why do all of you? Perhaps---faith? [smile]

To find evidence in answer to a question. Faith does not enter into it, either we will find evidence of ET or we won't. I hope that we will, though I'm uncertain (i.e. I have no faith that we will).

Now you have my answer, you were asked first, please provide yours.

Bobby, ID apparently will not address questions but instead would rather be obstreperous.

Obstreperous? No, my limit is within the Constitution that I took an oath to uphold.

Pertinacious is much better.

He can wait till I get a tuit.

Id, what does the constitution have to do with this thread? I would love to hear your explanation.

Ummmmm, he called me ob·strep·er·ous! [ ob stréppərəss ] 1.noisy: noisily and aggressively boisterous
2.unruly: strongly objecting to something or noisily refusing to be controlled

Im not refusing to be controlled.

And as you can see by my responce of "Pertinacious"; I have confirmed my point. Wellllllllll, really two points of order.

Why do you ask such a off topic question? Should I turn you in for it?

ID, the constitution is off this topic of this thread, that is being obstreperous.
You continue to prove the point!

---

Why can't we apply apply mathematical equations to the problem?

You just did...1:1--us.

Well, at least my equation has a "factor" of credibility about it.

Drakes equations is built around probability, but without sufficient sample
data, containing correct hits, then his equation is mathematically unsound.
Drake built this equation around a mathematical constant, 1 that one being us
the only known data that can be proved.

It is a hypothetical equation as can be seen from the factors it uses.
[snip]

Even calling it an hypothesis is a bit of a stretch, it's an hypothesis about how to ask the question (which explains why there have been a number of proposed changes to it). Once we understand how to ask the question, then it becomes an hypothesis proper. If we can collect sufficient data to assign meaningful values (rather than guesses) to the variables, then it'll become testable and stand a chance of being a scientifically valid theory.

Should it ever get there, it's unlikely to remove chance (as ID seems to believe), as it'll likely result in a value showing the probability of life arising and evolving to the point of technological civilization on one planet vs another. That kind of result may even be scientifically useful.

---

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

ID, why do you crunch Seti?

My proof in a nutshell. {LOL} Why do all of you? Perhaps---faith? [smile]

To find evidence in answer to a question. Faith does not enter into it, either we will find evidence of ET or we won't. I hope that we will, though I'm uncertain (i.e. I have no faith that we will).

Now you have my answer, you were asked first, please provide yours.

Bobby, ID apparently will not address questions but instead would rather be obstreperous.

Obstreperous? No, my limit is within the Constitution that I took an oath to uphold.

Pertinacious is much better.

He can wait till I get a tuit.

Good for you for taking that oath, I took a similar one before a federal judge. That being said, the rights protected by the USC have little bearing in this place, ever noticed the "red x"? The rules of this place do not permit the same freedom of speech that the 1st amendment protects.

In other words, your limits here are governed by the rules of this place, and if you're referring to them as "the Constitution" then I think you'd be the first to do so.

---

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

Bobby, LOL, ID bravely goes where man has not gone before. Sorta like Star Treck only different.

---

ID, why do you crunch Seti?

My proof in a nutshell. {LOL} Why do all of you? Perhaps---faith? [smile]

To find evidence in answer to a question. Faith does not enter into it, either we will find evidence of ET or we won't. I hope that we will, though I'm uncertain (i.e. I have no faith that we will).

Now you have my answer, you were asked first, please provide yours.

Bobby, ID apparently will not address questions but instead would rather be obstreperous.

Obstreperous? No, my limit is within the Constitution that I took an oath to uphold.

Pertinacious is much better.

He can wait till I get a tuit.

Good for you for taking that oath, I took a similar one before a federal judge. That being said, the rights protected by the USC have little bearing in this place, ever noticed the "red x"? The rules of this place do not permit the same freedom of speech that the 1st amendment protects.

In other words, your limits here are governed by the rules of this place, and if you're referring to them as "the Constitution" then I think you'd be the first to do so.

Sorta like you in the Gay Marriage thread? Perhaps? Should I turn you in? Perhaps?

Law is also intelligently designed.

Now how are you gonna link what you said in the gay marriage thread into being on topic?

...Law is also intelligently designed...

BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

---

#resist

...Law is also intelligently designed...

BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

No, no, no....

It's

Good for you for taking that oath, I took a similar one before a federal judge. That being said, the rights protected by the USC have little bearing in this place, ever noticed the "red x"? The rules of this place do not permit the same freedom of speech that the 1st amendment protects.

In other words, your limits here are governed by the rules of this place, and if you're referring to them as "the Constitution" then I think you'd be the first to do so.

Sorta like you in the Gay Marriage thread? Perhaps? Should I turn you in? Perhaps?

Law is also intelligently designed.

Now how are you gonna link what you said in the gay marriage thread into being on topic?

If you feel the need to red x any of my comments any where, please be my guest. Somebody else made a comment about the family of God in that other thread, I simply responded with some comments indicating that there are references to other family members in a book. I think that's enough about that other thread.

Now back to this thread, I believe you still have not answered "ID, why do you crunch Seti?", nor have you answered my question "Who asserts that the Drake equation is scientifically valid?". Your answer to the cephalopod eye question was not exactly compelling.

---

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

When I get tuit.

When I get tuit.

As you keep repeating this I am beginning to assume that you do not have any answers. So to dispel this assumption, I suggest you answer asap.

When I get tuit.

As you keep repeating this I am beginning to assume that you do not have any answers. So to dispel this assumption, I suggest you answer asap.

Heh, I first asked my question about the Drake equation two weeks ago. It took me less than an hour to show how the "answer" I.D. provided was not really an answer.

Apparently it's us that avoid direct questions.

---

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

When I get tuit.

Clueless?

---