Fortuna

• 1919
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #80 on: April 04, 2015, 12:17:26 AM »
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

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

Indeed, but it has no value in determining any real statistics. It's only useful in generating debate.

The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

I am about to flip a coin. The probability that it will land with heads side up is 1/2.

Oops, you must have misunderstood me. What I said was, I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2015, 12:22:41 AM by Andrew »
I stopped going to the gym because of Trump. Now I can't open jars

Rama Set

• 5606
• Round and round...
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #81 on: April 04, 2015, 12:30:20 AM »
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

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

Indeed, but it has no value in determining any real statistics. It's only useful in generating debate.

The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

I am about to flip a coin. The probability that it will land with heads side up is 1/2.

Oops, you must have misunderstood me. What I said was, I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

Oh. Sorry. I think you mean to say, s"omething that has not happened ,ever. "  I have not flipped the coin I am about to flip; it has not happened. Either way, you are wrong; just because something has not happened, does not mean you cannot know the likelihood of it happening. It does require that you have a good understanding of the factors contributing to its probability. For example, if I were to be the first person ever to flip a coin, it would not be difficult to work out that there are two possible outcomes and that the probability of each outcome is 1/2. Obviously, solving the Drake Equation is much more problematic, but that does not mean it is impossible.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Rushy

• Planar Moderator
• 7039
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #82 on: April 04, 2015, 01:29:07 AM »
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

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

Tau

• Zetetic Council Member
• 911
• Magistrum Fallaciae
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #83 on: April 04, 2015, 01:30:03 AM »
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

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

Indeed, but it has no value in determining any real statistics. It's only useful in generating debate.

The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

I am about to flip a coin. The probability that it will land with heads side up is 1/2.

Oops, you must have misunderstood me. What I said was, I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

What's your argument? That hypothesizing is unscientific?
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Fortuna

• 1919
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #84 on: April 04, 2015, 01:40:06 AM »
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

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

Indeed, but it has no value in determining any real statistics. It's only useful in generating debate.

The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

I am about to flip a coin. The probability that it will land with heads side up is 1/2.

Oops, you must have misunderstood me. What I said was, I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

Oh. Sorry. I think you mean to say, s"omething that has not happened ,ever. "  I have not flipped the coin I am about to flip; it has not happened. Either way, you are wrong; just because something has not happened, does not mean you cannot know the likelihood of it happening. It does require that you have a good understanding of the factors contributing to its probability. For example, if I were to be the first person ever to flip a coin, it would not be difficult to work out that there are two possible outcomes and that the probability of each outcome is 1/2. Obviously, solving the Drake Equation is much more problematic, but that does not mean it is impossible.

Actually it would be like flipping the coin once, having it come up heads, and then assuming every flip will come up heads. That's what you'll get from the Drake equation if you try to draw any meaningful conclusion from it with the information we have.
I stopped going to the gym because of Trump. Now I can't open jars

Rama Set

• 5606
• Round and round...
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #85 on: April 04, 2015, 10:53:53 AM »
What?  No. The Drake equation does not set the probability of extraterrestrial life at 1 does it?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Lord Dave

• 5052
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #86 on: April 04, 2015, 12:32:00 PM »
I agree with Vauxhall.

The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

Since life evolved/created/whatever on Earth, then it has occurred.  So you can't claim that life in the universe has never happened.

Right now we know of one single instance of life existing in the universe.

I say forget the drake equation.  Just go on this:
Earth exists.  Earth has life.  Earth has had life nearly extinct several times, so life is quite stubborn.  Therefore, if there exists a planet in the universe similar enough to Earth to exist in any state that our Earth has existed in during the time life has been on the planet, then we know that some form of life could exist there.  We don't know it does, but we know that, based on Earth, some form of life could survive.

We also know that, given identical conditions to Earth at the time life first formed, life should form elsewhere.  Physics and chemistry all that.

So, what are the odds that there is 1 planet in the universe similar to Earth enough to support the process that created life here?

Tau

• Zetetic Council Member
• 911
• Magistrum Fallaciae
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #87 on: April 04, 2015, 06:01:08 PM »
I think Andrew is thinking of this in very black and white terms. Science is all about the grey. Even the blackest of blacks and whitest of whites, in science, is just a particularly dark or light grey. The Drake equation says that there's probably life out there, and probably quite a bit of it.

To use your analogy, it would be more like flipping a coin once, getting heads, and determining that heads is a result you can get from a coin toss and that it probably isn't that uncommon.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Fortuna

• 1919
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #88 on: April 04, 2015, 07:19:33 PM »
I agree with Vauxhall.

The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

Since life evolved/created/whatever on Earth, then it has occurred.  So you can't claim that life in the universe has never happened.

My claim is that life outside of earth has not happened. If you want to prove this statement wrong, you have to find evidence to the contrary. Currently, there isn't any evidence whatsoever. Simply saying "herp derp the universe is Xbox huge" is not evidence. Science doesn't get to operate on conjecture.
I stopped going to the gym because of Trump. Now I can't open jars

Ghost of V

Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #89 on: April 04, 2015, 07:29:20 PM »
My claim is that life outside of earth has not happened. If you want to prove this statement wrong, you have to find evidence to the contrary. Currently, there isn't any evidence whatsoever. Simply saying "herp derp the universe is Xbox huge" is not evidence. Science doesn't get to operate on conjecture.

If this was a court of law there would be plenty of circumstantial evidence for the existence of life outside Earth. I still maintain the fact that you are grossly uninformed if you are making a claim of certainty that "there is no life outside Earth". At this point, that claim needs some support. Life on Earth proves that life exists in the universe, and can exist anywhere in the universe provided the right criteria is met.

Do you have any reasons for thinking that life does not exist beyond Earth? Despite the obvious "we haven't found em yet" argument?

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
« Last Edit: April 04, 2015, 07:31:12 PM by Vauxhall »

Rushy

• Planar Moderator
• 7039
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #90 on: April 04, 2015, 07:38:07 PM »
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

At this point, Vauxhall, your argument is no different than any given religion. Also this:

If this was a court of law there would be plenty of circumstantial evidence for the existence of life outside Earth.

« Last Edit: April 04, 2015, 07:40:13 PM by Irushwithscvs »

Ghost of V

Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #91 on: April 04, 2015, 07:38:24 PM »
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

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

At this point, Vauxhall, your argument is no different than any given religion. Also this:

Except it's not, because life has been shown to exist in the universe.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2015, 07:41:12 PM by Vauxhall »

Rushy

• Planar Moderator
• 7039
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #92 on: April 04, 2015, 07:40:55 PM »

Ghost of V

Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #93 on: April 04, 2015, 07:42:39 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

You really have no idea what that means, do you?

This isn't about God, Rushy. This is about life. Which has been shown to exist in the universe. Gods have not been observed, life has.

Do you want to debate this claim or just post wikipedia articles? Because I can do both.

Fortuna

• 1919
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #94 on: April 04, 2015, 07:42:53 PM »
My claim is that life outside of earth has not happened. If you want to prove this statement wrong, you have to find evidence to the contrary. Currently, there isn't any evidence whatsoever. Simply saying "herp derp the universe is Xbox huge" is not evidence. Science doesn't get to operate on conjecture.

If this was a court of law there would be plenty of circumstantial evidence for the existence of life outside Earth.

I'm not sure why you added this stupid little bit. The American justice system and the scientific method are polar opposites. Legal proceedings only care about how good a lawyer is. The scientific method cares about what is actually true.

In the realm of science, "we haven't found em yet" means they don't exist.
I stopped going to the gym because of Trump. Now I can't open jars

Rushy

• Planar Moderator
• 7039
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #95 on: April 04, 2015, 07:44:05 PM »
This isn't about God, Rushy. This is about life. Which has been shown to exist in the universe. Gods have not been observed, life has.

Do you want to debate this claim or just post wikipedia articles? Because I can do both.

This isn't about life, it is about life outside the solar system. Nice job trying to construct a strawman, though. There is no difference between claiming life exists outside the solar system and that god exists, an equal amount of evidence exists for both.

I'm not sure why you added this stupid little bit. The American justice system and the scientific method are polar opposites. Legal proceedings only care about how good a lawyer is. The scientific method cares about what is actually true.

In the realm of science, "we haven't found em yet" means they don't exist.

The justice system doesn't work like that, anyway. What he said was all around dumb.

Ghost of V

Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #96 on: April 04, 2015, 07:44:44 PM »
This isn't about life, it is about life outside the solar system. Nice job trying to construct a strawman, though.

You have no idea what that means, do you?

Rushy

• Planar Moderator
• 7039
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #97 on: April 04, 2015, 07:46:09 PM »
This isn't about life, it is about life outside the solar system. Nice job trying to construct a strawman, though.

You have no idea what that means, do you?

I'm glad to see that I could destroy you in roughly four posts. Carry on.

Particle Person

• Planar Moderator
• 2862
• born 2 b b&
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #98 on: April 04, 2015, 07:53:17 PM »
In the realm of science, "we haven't found em yet" means they don't exist.

No, it doesn't. As somebody said earlier, there is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know" in the "realm of science".

Ghost of V

Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #99 on: April 04, 2015, 07:55:52 PM »
This isn't about life, it is about life outside the solar system. Nice job trying to construct a strawman, though.

You have no idea what that means, do you?

I'm glad to see that I could destroy you in roughly four posts. Carry on.

You destroyed my educated assumption, good job.