Where Is Everybody? Where Are The Aliens?

[columbus]

ook, it doesn't matter who you name drop, or how brilliant they are in some facets of their life.

This is something that many religious people, such as @james bond , don't seem able to understand. They often cannot grasp that science isn't based on human authority, it's based on evidence. Darwin's racism is utterly inconsequential to biological science. Fermi made on off the cuff remark that doesn't match contemporary evidence, so his remark doesn't matter any more.

Science is about reality and the evidence is what matters, not which human made the claim. Religionists pick a prophet or organization or something human like that and accept their authority. Even when the evidence, AKA Reality, disagrees.
Tom

 

[`mud]

I have quite a time reading all the contributing arguments here.
And I'm sure that about a thousand years from now, no one will still have the answers.
I could be wrong, and I will not know.
Cognizance will not persist that long.
Maybe Thief will know, even Fool, but.........not me !

 

[james bond]

From who? The flaws come from being disconnected with reality, not from a particular person...

Fermi assumed too many things from too many fields of study to make any kind of real impact on Astrobiological research. To claim otherwise is to misconstrue his position and the current comprehensive study of Cosmology. To then take his little idea and use it as a foundation for your "God created the Universe" argument is dubious at best.

Here are 50 alternative solutions to this pet thought puzzle:
https://www.astro.ufl.edu/~lebo/AST2037/Fermi's Paradox - Stephen Webb.docx
Again, each one is just about as likely as any other - those which have more substantiating material behind them are more probable than those which are total shots in the dark - but even they're still possible until proven otherwise. You know...Science?

Yes, I know. It's based on atheist science. I stopped reading after Copernican Principle because NO ALIENS won't be in there. That is one possibility. Creation science says CP is more a statement of assumption or origins science than based on observational/operational science based on scientific data. CP isn't a fact like atheist science assumes.

You keep coming back to this, as if it matters somehow...

Please, for the love of Fermi, read this article.
Appeal to Authority

Look, it doesn't matter who you name drop, or how brilliant they are in some facets of their life. Bad arguments are bad arguments, regardless of who makes them. The only thing that matters is what substantiates any given argument. And while you've mentioned these things numerous times, you've not shown how any of it relates to, or supports, your position.

• Elon Musk saying that he wants to travel at 20% the speed of light one day doesn't support anything. It's not currently possible, it may never be so, and no one has any idea as to how to do it if it is. So it doesn't support you, or anything else for that matter. It's just Elon Musk talking.
• Carl Sagan not being a staunch Atheist doesn't mean that you're faith is suddenly vindicated, or that he believed in anything more than the possibility of something beyond his comprehension. It doesn't support anything other than Carl Sagan's personal philosophy.
• The Drake equation is just as problematic as Fermi's Paradox - without any substantiating source material for their base assumptions, they're ultimately worthless.
• SETI is incredibly limited in scope, on a planet that is limited in vision, using tools that are limited in capacity...

Is that really what you consider to be a sound supporting defense for your position?

Now, you're beginning to sound like SZ's sock puppet. I didn't use Fermi as an authority in my argument, but his question that made an impact on his lunch mates and around the world even to this day as the Fermi Paradox. That was back in 1961 and superior alien technology would be even more superior than before, but what's a few decades in comparison to billions of years? Doesn't evolution take billions of years?

That's a Captain Obvious statement from Berkeley... I've also said as much myself.
So what?

So, I expect you to talk out of both sides of your mouth when I say, "Then creation scientists are more right than atheist scientists and their mediocrity of earth's habitability. Fine tuning theory works again and favors the creationists.

You're applying very slippery logic.
Using your same argument, if a lack of direct evidence for Alien Civilizations means they don't exist, then what can be said about the existence of your creator God?

If you feel differently about substantiating evidence for the claim that you just made, then please cite it in response.

I've compared the Fermi's paradox, SETI, what NASA plans, what Elon Musk says (he's trying to get money from NASA, rich sheiks, other wealthy, etc. to go into space with their missions using Space-X) and atheist science news articles (even added the mediocrity hypothesis since the start of this thread) and compared to what the Bible said, "The earth and mankind are unique in God's creation. Genesis 1 teaches that God created the earth before He even created the sun, the moon, or the stars. Acts 17:24-26 states that “the God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands…he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.”

the Bible say? The earth and mankind are unique in God's creation. Genesis 1 teaches that God created the earth before He even created the sun, the moon, or the stars. Acts 17:24-26 states that “the God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands…he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.”

DISTANCE
Anyone who says that distance (Space Time) is not a factor in all of these conversations (equations, paradoxes, arguments, etc...) is just woefully mistaken.

Introduction to general relativity - Wikipedia

Remember how I said that we are limited in our ability to even comprehend? Vision is a huge part of that problem. We can't even see most of the Universe. It's physically blocked by the Milky Way.

See those black areas with nothing in them? We cannot see in that direction. If you cannot "see" something, then you cannot study it.

We also can't see what hasn't yet come visible to us...
Light cone - Wikipedia

You might forget this in all the righteous indignation, but radio waves and photons both travel at the speed of light. What's true of one is true of the other in these examples.

Lookback Time

On The Idea of Linear Evolution
From Cornell...
http://pages.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/websterlab/10 Misunderstandings - SHORT.pdf
(Please read articles 1, 6,7,9, & 10 at the very least)

On this planet, what's the longest tenured, and thus evolutionarily successful, species?
How advanced are they, in comparison to Homo Sapiens?
What does their Space program look like?


At this point, I'm not even sure you know why you're laughing.

The analogy is very simple.

• If I throw a football before you're born, you'll never know that I threw a football.
• If I throw a football after you're born, but before you know what a football is, you'll never know that I threw a football.
• If I throw a football after you're born, but your back is turned, you'll never know that I threw a football.
• If I throw a football and you're looking right at me, but for whatever reason you can't see the football, you'll never know that I threw a football.
• If I throw a football and you know what a football is, and you're even looking for a football, but you're running in a specific direction in the dark, you'll never know that I thew a football.

I could have thrown millions of footballs, and you'd wouldn't be privy to a single one of them...

As for the rest, you're entitled to your opinion. MLB and NBA are more my sports than NFL. I've used the cone in mapping how to get to the Pillars of Creation in PM's speed of light spaceship. We would need to find someone who had the technology first though. I guess you don't believe all the sci-fi in Star Wars and the like, but it sure impressed a lot of people in 1977 when the MF blasted into hyperspace in hyperdrive. Beats warp speed every time, but I'm willing to find someone who provides warp drive and travel at a few parsecs ha ha.

 

[james bond]

This is something that many religious people, such as @james bond , don't seem able to understand. They often cannot grasp that science isn't based on human authority, it's based on evidence. Darwin's racism is utterly inconsequential to biological science. Fermi made on off the cuff remark that doesn't match contemporary evidence, so his remark doesn't matter any more.

Science is about reality and the evidence is what matters, not which human made the claim. Religionists pick a prophet or organization or something human like that and accept their authority. Even when the evidence, AKA Reality, disagrees.
Tom

Tom, the atheist science evidence shows the intelligent life is rare. I'm going by what evolution.berkeley.edu stated. That is more in line with the anthropic principle which is favored by creation science.

Add to it, the mediocrity of earth's habitability. That is more in line with the Copernican principle of atheist science. Fermi's paradox still stands though. I can't help it if you changed your mind since the beginning of this thread.

 

[columbus]

Tom, the atheist science evidence shows the intelligent life is rare.

Personally, I doubt that we will ever contact alien lifeforms. Not as we are now.

Add to it, the mediocrity of earth's habitability.

You don't seem to understand what that means in the context.

I can't help it if you changed your mind since the beginning of this thread.

I haven't changed my mind. I don't know why you think so.
Tom

 

[siti]

Creation science says CP is more a statement of assumption or origins science than based on observational/operational science based on scientific data. CP isn't a fact like atheist science assumes.

Yes it is...

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Even if there is no life on other planets, that doesn't say anything about some deity. Those are two totally separate subjects. Such a stupid thread, but anyone who believes in "creation science" (no such thing) isn't that bright in the first place.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Yes, I know. It's based on atheist science. I stopped reading after Copernican Principle because NO ALIENS won't be in there. That is one possibility. Creation science says CP is more a statement of assumption or origins science than based on observational/operational science based on scientific data. CP isn't a fact like atheist science assumes.

So you read, what, like three sentences?

You shouldn't give up on links just because you assume they won't agree with you...

(From Section 3)

They Do Not Exist:
This class of solutions holds that we are alone in the universe—no other ETC’s.

31) The Universe Is Here for Us

• If the number of “difficult” steps in the development of advanced life is too large, advance life might not appear before the parent sun becomes too unstable. For perspective, humanity appeared on early about halfway though through the sun’s lifespan
• Anthropic principle

32) Life Can Have Emerged Only Recently

• Life cannot appear anywhere in the galaxy until certain elements build up to certain levels, so ETC’s would not have started long before life started here.

33) Planetary Systems Are Rare

• Some early models suggested the planetary formation required special circumstances and so would be rare but these models have been overturned

34) We Are the First

• Life could not appear anywhere until sufficient quantities of certain elements had built up

35) Rocky Planets Are Rare

• Some models suggested that rocky planet’s like Earth may requite the action of a gamma ray burster but there are more plausible models that do not require this event

36) Continuously Habitable Zones Are Narrow

• The Habitable Zone refers to the distance a planet must be from the sun to maintain liquid water. The Continuously Habitable Zone is the region where liquid water is maintained for billions of years as the parent star changes in luminosity.

37) Jupiters Are Rare

• Large gas giant planets may be common but they need to be in the right place and have a circular orbit to allow for habitable planets

38) Earth Has an Optimal “Pump for Evolution”

• Extinction events (e.g. asteroidal collisions) make room for new life

39) The Galaxy Is a Dangerous Place

• Black holes, supernova, and gamma ray bursts

40) A Planetary System Is a Dangerous Place

• Snowball earth, super-volcanoes, and mass extinction events

41) Earth System of Plate Tectonics is Unique

• Active plate tectonics is needed to recycle critical elements

42) The Moon is Unique

• Our moon is necessary for maintaining stability, however, its formation requires very unusual circumstances

43) Life’s Genesis Is Rare

44) The Prokaryote-Eukaryote Transition is Rare

• Prokaryotes are the simplest organisms. Eukaryote cells are the basis for multi-cellar life

45) Toolmaking Species Are Rare

46) Technological Progress Is Not Inevitable

47) Intelligence at the Human Level Is Rare

48) Language Is Unique to Humans

49) Science Is Not Inevitable

• Ancient science was developed by the Greeks (c. 500 BC) but modern science appeared late (17th-18th century)

50) Stephen Webb’s Solution to the Fermi Paradox
It is likely that we are alone in the galaxy. Rather than a single solution (cause), it is likely some combination of the above listed solutions. Simple life (i.e. bacteria) may be common but we are likely the only advanced intelligent life.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll come back to the other stuff in the morning.

 

[james bond]

Yes it is...

Are you saying a strip joint is the same as your house? Maybe it is, but likely they're in different building zones. They would not look alike. When we expand out into space, then they look the same. Furthermore, your depiction shows that the universe is bounded. In that case, the earth would be located in the center.

 

[james bond]

Even if there is no life on other planets, that doesn't say anything about some deity. Those are two totally separate subjects. Such a stupid thread, but anyone who believes in "creation science" (no such thing) isn't that bright in the first place.

Tsk.

 

[james bond]

So you read, what, like three sentences?

You shouldn't give up on links just because you assume they won't agree with you...

(From Section 3)

They Do Not Exist:
This class of solutions holds that we are alone in the universe—no other ETC’s.

31) The Universe Is Here for Us

• If the number of “difficult” steps in the development of advanced life is too large, advance life might not appear before the parent sun becomes too unstable. For perspective, humanity appeared on early about halfway though through the sun’s lifespan
• Anthropic principle

32) Life Can Have Emerged Only Recently

• Life cannot appear anywhere in the galaxy until certain elements build up to certain levels, so ETC’s would not have started long before life started here.

33) Planetary Systems Are Rare

• Some early models suggested the planetary formation required special circumstances and so would be rare but these models have been overturned

34) We Are the First

• Life could not appear anywhere until sufficient quantities of certain elements had built up

35) Rocky Planets Are Rare

• Some models suggested that rocky planet’s like Earth may requite the action of a gamma ray burster but there are more plausible models that do not require this event

36) Continuously Habitable Zones Are Narrow

• The Habitable Zone refers to the distance a planet must be from the sun to maintain liquid water. The Continuously Habitable Zone is the region where liquid water is maintained for billions of years as the parent star changes in luminosity.

37) Jupiters Are Rare

• Large gas giant planets may be common but they need to be in the right place and have a circular orbit to allow for habitable planets

38) Earth Has an Optimal “Pump for Evolution”

• Extinction events (e.g. asteroidal collisions) make room for new life

39) The Galaxy Is a Dangerous Place

• Black holes, supernova, and gamma ray bursts

40) A Planetary System Is a Dangerous Place

• Snowball earth, super-volcanoes, and mass extinction events

41) Earth System of Plate Tectonics is Unique

• Active plate tectonics is needed to recycle critical elements

42) The Moon is Unique

• Our moon is necessary for maintaining stability, however, its formation requires very unusual circumstances

43) Life’s Genesis Is Rare

44) The Prokaryote-Eukaryote Transition is Rare

• Prokaryotes are the simplest organisms. Eukaryote cells are the basis for multi-cellar life

45) Toolmaking Species Are Rare

46) Technological Progress Is Not Inevitable

47) Intelligence at the Human Level Is Rare

48) Language Is Unique to Humans

49) Science Is Not Inevitable

• Ancient science was developed by the Greeks (c. 500 BC) but modern science appeared late (17th-18th century)

50) Stephen Webb’s Solution to the Fermi Paradox
It is likely that we are alone in the galaxy. Rather than a single solution (cause), it is likely some combination of the above listed solutions. Simple life (i.e. bacteria) may be common but we are likely the only advanced intelligent life.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll come back to the other stuff in the morning.

I'll drink to us being alone in the universe and earth being the best. Why don't you just admit Webb's solution is fine? I doubt we'll even find bacteria.

 

[siti]

Furthermore, your depiction shows that the universe is bounded.

No it doesn't - it shows that the extent of our observations is bounded...which it is bound to be...and of course the boundary of the extent of our bounded observations from earth is also bound to be earth-centred...the observers being, as they are bound to be, earth-bound...

...stick that into your completely ridiculous anthropic principle (think acronymically - my apologies to my skeptical mathematical genius hero Martin Gardner) and see what happens...

What your response shows is that the boundary of your understanding of the science you feel bound to discredit is severely bounded...but I suppose its bound to be...

I hope you don't think me a bounder for pointing this out...

 

[Jainarayan]

They don't want to bother with us.

 

[siti]

They don't want to bother with us.

This is an old theory...

 

[leibowde84]

Humans won't find aliens because God didn't create aliens. How can one find something that doesn't exist? Who believes in the flying spaghetti monster? Atheist scientists!!! Ha ha.

It's ironic that I'm quoting atheist science. Atheist scientists still think there are aliens in many places in the universe. They have no evidence, but they think due to planet habitability based on evolution that they exist. They used to think they existed due to the vastness of space. Even the tests that SETI has conducted backs no aliens. Moreover, it seems evolution.berkeley.com is admitting that alien life is rare now instead of saying they're in many places. Finally, you're admitting that humans will never find aliens. Why? The latest is there is a great filter. Oh brother. The atheist scientists won't give up.

Your argument here rests on a logical fallacy. You are saying that, because there is no evidence of aliens that has been found, aliens must not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is logically fallacious to use the lack of evidence for the existence of aliens as proof that aliens don't exist.

Also, you believe in God, and there is no verifiable evidence for God. Like with aliens, there are anecdotal accounts, personal experiences, etc. But, there is no verifiable evidence. So, obviously you don't think a lack of verifiable evidence should stop someone from believing something. This fact undermines your entire point here.

 

[james bond]

No it doesn't - it shows that the extent of our observations is bounded...which it is bound to be...and of course the boundary of the extent of our bounded observations from earth is also bound to be earth-centred...the observers being, as they are bound to be, earth-bound...

...stick that into your completely ridiculous anthropic principle (think acronymically - my apologies to my skeptical mathematical genius hero Martin Gardner) and see what happens...

What your response shows is that the boundary of your understanding of the science you feel bound to discredit is severely bounded...but I suppose its bound to be...

I hope you don't think me a bounder for pointing this out...

I don't think you're a bounder. I would be the bounder or someone who thinks the universe isn't forever expanding, but has definite boundaries. Some people try to point out the Copernican principle is true or a fact when it's not. The CP is an assumption based on observation, i.e. the universe looks the same, whichever the observer looks and wherever the observer is placed.

OTOH, creation science observes the anthropic principle that the universe was designed from the moment of its existence for the creation of humankind, plants and animals. There are no other life forms. The observable universe isn't the same, whichever the observer looks and wherever the observer is placed. The thinking is if there are boundaries to the universe, then there is a center.

As for the shape of the universe, the best estimate is that it's flat, but if one looks at shapes of galaxies, it comes in various shapes -- spiral, elliptical, lenticular and irregular. The main difference between atheist science vs creation science is how long the universe has been expanding and how long does it take for our galaxies to form. It appears that due to the latest atheist science observations of the universe, they have added a couple more billion years to make our universe 15.8 B years old while creation science has remained the same of a young earth.

 

[james bond]

Your argument here rests on a logical fallacy. You are saying that, because there is no evidence of aliens that has been found, aliens must not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is logically fallacious to use the lack of evidence for the existence of aliens as proof that aliens don't exist.

Also, you believe in God, and there is no verifiable evidence for God. Like with aliens, there are anecdotal accounts, personal experiences, etc. But, there is no verifiable evidence. So, obviously you don't think a lack of verifiable evidence should stop someone from believing something. This fact undermines your entire point here.

It sounds as if you're admitting atheism is based on a logical fallacy, i.e. no evidence of God has been found, so God must not exist. You just replaced aliens with God and then attributed it to me. You just reasoned the same with your absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ha ha. Doh!!!

What I reasoned was there are no aliens because they weren't created by the creator which is not the same logic. I use the absence of evidence to back up my logic.

As for God, we have the Resurrection, the Bible and creation science. Just what do you think I've been talking about all these months and on this thread?

 

[siti]

I don't think you're a bounder. I would be the bounder or someone who thinks the universe isn't forever expanding, but has definite boundaries. Some people try to point out the Copernican principle is true or a fact when it's not. The CP is an assumption based on observation, i.e. the universe looks the same, whichever the observer looks and wherever the observer is placed.

OTOH, creation science observes the anthropic principle that the universe was designed from the moment of its existence for the creation of humankind, plants and animals. There are no other life forms. The observable universe isn't the same, whichever the observer looks and wherever the observer is placed. The thinking is if there are boundaries to the universe, then there is a center.

As for the shape of the universe, the best estimate is that it's flat, but if one looks at shapes of galaxies, it comes in various shapes -- spiral, elliptical, lenticular and irregular. The main difference between atheist science vs creation science is how long the universe has been expanding and how long does it take for our galaxies to form. It appears that due to the latest atheist science observations of the universe, they have added a couple more billion years to make our universe 15.8 B years old while creation science has remained the same of a young earth.

OK, but it is a perfectly obvious fact that the observer will be at the center of the observable universe and that the boundaries of the observable part of an infinite universe would be spherical...so the universe can be expected to appear as if the earth were at the center and that the universe is bounded either way. But the bigger problem for YEC is that if it all happened within the last few thousand years, how did the universe (even the observable bit) get so bloody big in such a short time? How come we can actually see galaxies ten billion light years away - if it was all put there - so very far away - and switched on only a few thousand years ago, how did the light get here so fast?

Nope - the observational data so far suggests very strongly that the universe is very, very large indeed (possibly boundless) and very, very old (possibly beginningless) and very, very uniform - at least within the 46.5 billion light year radius neck of the woods that we happen to be at the observational center of. I think its pretty safe to assume that we are not really all that special on a cosmological scale.

 

[james bond]

So you read, what, like three sentences?

You shouldn't give up on links just because you assume they won't agree with you...

(From Section 3)

They Do Not Exist:
This class of solutions holds that we are alone in the universe—no other ETC’s.

31) The Universe Is Here for Us

• If the number of “difficult” steps in the development of advanced life is too large, advance life might not appear before the parent sun becomes too unstable. For perspective, humanity appeared on early about halfway though through the sun’s lifespan
• Anthropic principle

32) Life Can Have Emerged Only Recently

• Life cannot appear anywhere in the galaxy until certain elements build up to certain levels, so ETC’s would not have started long before life started here.

33) Planetary Systems Are Rare

• Some early models suggested the planetary formation required special circumstances and so would be rare but these models have been overturned

34) We Are the First

• Life could not appear anywhere until sufficient quantities of certain elements had built up

35) Rocky Planets Are Rare

• Some models suggested that rocky planet’s like Earth may requite the action of a gamma ray burster but there are more plausible models that do not require this event

36) Continuously Habitable Zones Are Narrow

• The Habitable Zone refers to the distance a planet must be from the sun to maintain liquid water. The Continuously Habitable Zone is the region where liquid water is maintained for billions of years as the parent star changes in luminosity.

37) Jupiters Are Rare

• Large gas giant planets may be common but they need to be in the right place and have a circular orbit to allow for habitable planets

38) Earth Has an Optimal “Pump for Evolution”

• Extinction events (e.g. asteroidal collisions) make room for new life

39) The Galaxy Is a Dangerous Place

• Black holes, supernova, and gamma ray bursts

40) A Planetary System Is a Dangerous Place

• Snowball earth, super-volcanoes, and mass extinction events

41) Earth System of Plate Tectonics is Unique

• Active plate tectonics is needed to recycle critical elements

42) The Moon is Unique

• Our moon is necessary for maintaining stability, however, its formation requires very unusual circumstances

43) Life’s Genesis Is Rare

44) The Prokaryote-Eukaryote Transition is Rare

• Prokaryotes are the simplest organisms. Eukaryote cells are the basis for multi-cellar life

45) Toolmaking Species Are Rare

46) Technological Progress Is Not Inevitable

47) Intelligence at the Human Level Is Rare

48) Language Is Unique to Humans

49) Science Is Not Inevitable

• Ancient science was developed by the Greeks (c. 500 BC) but modern science appeared late (17th-18th century)

50) Stephen Webb’s Solution to the Fermi Paradox
It is likely that we are alone in the galaxy. Rather than a single solution (cause), it is likely some combination of the above listed solutions. Simple life (i.e. bacteria) may be common but we are likely the only advanced intelligent life.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll come back to the other stuff in the morning.

I will give you one thing, jonathan180iq. At least, you're trying to explain why evolution happens on other planets (when it doesn't). Represent. I'm not sure if anyone else did.

 

[james bond]

OK, but it is a perfectly obvious fact that the observer will be at the center of the observable universe and that the boundaries of the observable part of an infinite universe would be spherical...so the universe can be expected to appear as if the earth were at the center and that the universe is bounded either way. But the bigger problem for YEC is that if it all happened within the last few thousand years, how did the universe (even the observable bit) get so bloody big in such a short time? How come we can actually see galaxies ten billion light years away - if it was all put there - so very far away - and switched on only a few thousand years ago, how did the light get here so fast?

Nope - the observational data so far suggests very strongly that the universe is very, very large indeed (possibly boundless) and very, very old (possibly beginningless) and very, very uniform - at least within the 46.5 billion light year radius neck of the woods that we happen to be at the observational center of. I think its pretty safe to assume that we are not really all that special on a cosmological scale.

The explanation of the problem of the young earth and universe (they're the same age in creation science) is the clock being placed at the edge of the universe reads billions of years old and the same clock being placed on earth reads thousands of years old. The clock at the edge of the universe would read much higher due to time dilation.

As for observational data of the universe, you're basing the findings on BBT based on the Copernican principle. I would think that assumption is an arbitrary one such as the map which you posted.