Huh? I did look at the drake equation. Did you? It actually is clearly looking at intelligent life.

Haha, ignore the fact that you said the probabilities are manifested at random and not based upon empirical evidence. Bravo.

There have been several off-shoots from the Drake Equation that are not confined to intelligent life. I didn't realize I had to be so black and white about this. 

I don't debate religion because I find the people who believe in god to be as laughable as to those who say they believe in Santa Claus.

Moderated,

-Mr Khan

So, you've both agreed that neither the existence or non-existence of God can be determined with 100% certainty. I guess the big question is, who has more to lose if they're wrong?

I didn't ignore anything. I responded to what you said. I don't know where I said they are produced at random. I said we have extremely limited data on the likelihood of life developing and the likelihood of that life becoming intelligent.......which makes it hard to fill in the equation. This is supported by just a quick glance at the peer-reviewed research. I'm not an expert on the subject, but the probabilities in these articles are highly variable.....and highly dependent on what the researchers consider to be the requisite requirements for life.

I think the answer to that question is obvious. A better question is where does the evidence lead us? Does the evidence or lack thereof point toward a supernatural being, or no? I think the answer to that question is obvious as well, but perhaps that's just me.

No doubt. Perhaps the Drake equation wasn't he best example. Goldilocks planets are better.

Yeah, I can see that, but it seems some researchers seriously questions if that's a valid measure of whether life can develop becasue there are other planetary factors to take into account. I would agree with them......at least if you want an accurate term for the probability of life developing.

To somebody who believes in God, the immense complexity of the natural world, the amazing interconnected systems that allow all levels of life to function, the interdependence of plant and animal life, the necessity for such precision in the distance of the earth from the sun, exact composition of the atmosphere, necessity of magnetic poles to repel deadly cosmic radiation, and the countless other exact specifications necessary for life that exist on earth add up to an unsurmountable pile of evidence for intelligent design. You see it otherwise. I can see one of those things as being mathematically possible via some equation, but when you add all of them up, there is no way in my view that the entirity of the systems on this life sustaining planet could possibly happen by random chance. This is why it really depends on what evidence you look at it, and how you interpret that evidence.

I'll just say this has a lot of similarity to what dsgrue and I were talking about with the probbaility of life developing. The problem I have with the fine-tuning argument is the same one I have with the arguments for the development of life.....its just real hard to determine the prior probabilities of all these things. I'm not saying it can't be done, but there are some severe limitations.

I like this.

Now we can move on to evidence. We can keep that for another topic, but with this milestone reached (impactful was a good word), we move forward towards truth.