Where Is Everybody? Where Are The Aliens?

[siti]

we have had 200,000 years

Well OK - and of course homo habilis was specially created with the ability to build radio telescopes (all now rusted away without trace of course) so he could detect the faint signals originating from the far reaches of the milky way galaxy in order to detect extra-terrestrial communications...in fact we have had the ability to detect such signals for just about a century - and our oldest human-generated radio signals have now spread out across about just about 100 light years of space (radius) - the limit of detectability of our technological presence scribes a sphere with a volume that corresponds approximately to one two-millionth part of the entire volume of the galaxy. Our signals will not reach any other galaxy for 2.5 million years. I really don't think we should be expecting a return call just yet.

 

[Sapiens]

Well OK - and of course homo habilis was specially created with the ability to build radio telescopes (all now rusted away without trace of course) so he could detect the faint signals originating from the far reaches of the milky way galaxy in order to detect extra-terrestrial communications...in fact we have had the ability to detect such signals for just about a century - and our oldest human-generated radio signals have now spread out across about just about 100 light years of space (radius) - the limit of detectability of our technological presence scribes a sphere with a volume that corresponds approximately to one two-millionth part of the entire volume of the galaxy. Our signals will not reach any other galaxy for 2.5 million years. I really don't think we should be expecting a return call just yet.

Let us not forget that analog RF transmissions only occured for about a century and are now almost wholly replaced by digital RF transmissions that are virtually indistinguishable from background noise unless you have very specific information concerning the decoding process. Someone would have to be listening at precisely right time to get the analog version.

 

[`mud]

Unless `warp drive` is faster than light ?
But I truly doubt it !

 

[leibowde84]

I'm glad that you admitted atheism is a logical fallacy. It's just that you have no faith but in atheist science. No aliens shows that the creator did not create aliens. It also shows that evolution doesn't work on other planets despite having more billions of years than us. Thus, why should it work here?

Wow, you sure do love putting words in peoples' mouths. It's a very disrespectful thing to do. I never said that atheism was a logical fallacy. Actually, that statement doesn't even make sense, as atheism is not an argument. What I said is that the specific argument that the absence of evidence for God proves that God does not exist is logically flawed in the same way that your argument is.

No one knows whether aliens exist. What we do know is that it is astronomically more likely that they do. So, your statement that "no aliens shows that the creator did not create aliens" is dishonest, as I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you understand the basic fact that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

As for the rest, it doesn't make much sense at all, so I'll leave you with your looney tunes opinions.

What specifically do you have a hard time understanding? These are basic rules of logic and show the lack of value in arguments based on ignoring them.

Or, are you just unwilling to admit when you are wrong?

 

[siti]

Unless `warp drive` is faster than light ?
But I truly doubt it !

Nope. Warp drive doesn't move the craft any faster it just brings the distant regions of space closer by creating folds in the fabric of space so you can leap across a much smaller gap between two distant regions of space. Of course only Scotty knows how to make that work - though actually it was Spock who showed him how to do it. And ever so slightly more believable than Mr Bond's warp speed edge of the universe in a >10,000 year old cosmos. That would have even made Spock laugh!

 

[`mud]

 

[TransmutingSoul]

One of my arguments for evidence of God is aliens or the lack of extraterrestrial life. In other words, the Bible does not state that God created aliens.

This is what has been said;

"Thou hast, moreover, asked Me concerning the nature of the celestial spheres. To comprehend their nature, it would be necessary to inquire into the meaning of the allusions that have been made in the Books of old to the celestial spheres and the heavens, and to discover the character of their relationship to this physical world, and the influence which they exert upon it. Every heart is filled with wonder at so bewildering a theme, and every mind is perplexed by its mystery. God, alone, can fathom its import…. Know thou that every fixed star hath its own planets, and every planet its own creatures, whose number no man can compute." – Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, pp. 162-163.

Regards Tony

 

[Polymath257]

Let us not forget that analog RF transmissions only occured for about a century and are now almost wholly replaced by digital RF transmissions that are virtually indistinguishable from background noise unless you have very specific information concerning the decoding process. Someone would have to be listening at precisely right time to get the analog version.

And, it should be pointed out, the reverse direction may also be true: it is possible that alien messages (to each other) are encoded and look like noise to us. Unless they *specifically* try to let us know they exist, we may not be able to tell.

To the point of 200,000 years of Homo Sapiens, we have not had the *ability* to detect anything from a different race until very recently. We have not sent out a signal to let them know we exist until recently. So the whole 200,000 year thing seems beside the point. Unless they are literally *everywhere*, a signal from 100 years ago simply hasn't had the time to reach anyone that could be interested. A hundred light years is a very, very small distance on the cosmic scale.

 

[Polymath257]

Here's an analogy.

Suppose you live in a small town in the middle of nowhere. All you know is your small town. There are, however, big cities, but they are hundreds of miles away.

You start walking to see if there are any other people outside of your small town and declare a conclusion after you have walked for 5 minutes.

 

[`mud]

We are like a fraction of the core of the photons around us,
I feel that there others out there looking for us.
I fear that they will fear what they will find.
But, as said.....how will they get here...warp drive my arse.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Just real quick, you're going to need to clarify what your abbreviations mean before you start using them all over the place. I'm just left to guess at what you're referring to... most of the time, I have no idea.

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?

Again, Fermi's Paradox is nothing more than a thought experiment and 50 years of technological breakthroughs does nothing to bridge the gap between great distances.

The thing is, you're asking the right questions. You're just not taking them seriously.

If you don't like the word "billions", shrink it.
The Milky Way Galaxy is only 100,000 Light Years across. What's a few decades over the course of 100,000 years?
(*Hint: It's still minuscule)

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.

Admitting that intelligent life is rare to find is a no-brainer given our current capacity for knowledge of the subject. So far as we can tell, we're the only game in town, right? We agree on that because it's apparent.

But intelligent life being apparently rare does not discount the ability of simple biological processes to have occurred any countless number of times in any countless number of places, given what we know about Biology in general. Nor does it negate the possibility of intelligent life to begin with...

Look, we don't even know what all is contained in our own Solar System. To make wide-ranging claims about the rest of the UNIVERSE premature, at best, don't you think?

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.”

I understand what your faith is - but you have to recognize that quoting the Bible does not constitute evidence for anything in a conversation like this. It's evidence for what you believe, certainly. And it gives insight into your interpretation and, I would guess, your denomination even. But it's not substantiating on any other level.

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.

So replace the football with a baseball or a basketball - it all the same thing.

Also, you're right - I don't believe in the sci-fi from Star Wars...
There are lots of logical and mathematical problems that are created with the "studies" which say that a warp drive is even a theoretical possibility. There's a fine line between guiding vision and pipe-dream. You know what I mean?

I'm just as much a fan of Sci-Fi as the next guy - but when dealing with issues that exist in the present, I prefer factual studies over the fanstasies of fiction writers.

 

[`mud]

Ahhhhh.....To think in terms of universes in the entire Cosmos.....
that would seem nice.

 

[`mud]

hey Poly,
Are we thinking of just humans here ?
What about other life forms ?
Like walking through our gardens.
How many forms are out there?

 

[siti]

Here's an analogy.

Suppose you live in a small town in the middle of nowhere. All you know is your small town. There are, however, big cities, but they are hundreds of miles away.

You start walking to see if there are any other people outside of your small town and declare a conclusion after you have walked for 5 minutes.

Exactly - or like dipping a toe into the first 5cm at the front of an incoming wave and because it hasn't immediately been bitten by a passing crab declaring the entire ocean to be lifeless.

 

[james bond]

Ah right so you are guessing. That's the way it goes.

Not guessing. Creation science. I posted the stuff from the abiogenesis thread. What did we learn from it? We learned only life begats life. From this aliens thread. God didn't create aliens. God only created life on earth. Add it together and no aliens and no life on other planets (unless panspermia or accident transfer from Earth).

What did I learn from this thread? I learned that most atheists here do not want to take a stand. They will not support what atheist wikipedia states on mediocrity principle. Maybe they don't support planet habitability, too. Some "represent" their atheism and present a decent argument. What is your stand?

For the future, I'm working on planet habitability and whether we'll be able to become multiplanetary.

Then reams of speculation that i glanced at but never bothered to respond to because... Those links on the subject under discussion are speculation, the other's are as far as this thread is concerned, spam.

Now to the point of this thread. Whether alien life, exists, is rare or common is moot, we don't know. That is the only valid answer.

That's a weak answer. Are you a weak atheist or agnostic? What if I said, we don't know if God exists. That is the only valid answer. That would make me agnostic to you, I think, and you know I'm not. I'm Christian and come to represent and fight for creation science and that science (when the science starts to settle in the battle between CS and AS) backs up the Bible. Yes, teaching it in school, too. Will have to take the God part out, so as it is not religion.

Given the limit imposed by light speed, unless major advances in technology occur and trump does not completely shut of scientific funding then chances are we'll never visit other planets outside our solar system, in your lifetime or mine anyway.

As I stated, that's a topic for another time. We do not have to visit other planets in order to learn what we need to know about them. Probes and observation by powerful telescopes, such as the upcoming James Webb one, is sufficient. That's what Carl Sagan believed, too.

However there is another way

Current observations show there are trillions of suns our there (many thousands are easy to see with the naked eye on as clear night). The majority (if not all) hold planets in their gravitational field. Also observations show that around 10% to 20% of the suns that we know that have planets have at least one planet in the Goldilocks habitable zone and are of a mass (hence gravity) to sustain life. It has also been measured that several of those planets have water in their atmosphere.

As you probably know water is prerequisite for life as we understand it.

Now as to whether those planets contain life, back to square one. Given our present level of technology, we just don't know. But astronomers, chemists, satellite engineers and other related experts are working to build a satellite that should be capable of more precisely measuring atmospheres of far distant planets which will show signs of life if such life exists.

Finding Life Beyond Earth is Within Reach


Edit, i do not believe that link you claim is one of mine actually is one of mine, its certainly not what i would use, its too speculative. However if you would provide the post number which as you say, provided that link it would help

I'll read it, but can you figure anything else from it unless they tell you THEIR findings?

 

[ChristineM]

Not guessing. Creation science. I posted the stuff from the abiogenesis thread. What did we learn from it? We learned only life begats life. From this aliens thread. God didn't create aliens. God only created life on earth. Add it together and no aliens and no life on other planets (unless panspermia or accident transfer from Earth).

What did I learn from this thread? I learned that most atheists here do not want to take a stand. They will not support what atheist wikipedia states on mediocrity principle. Maybe they don't support planet habitability, too. Some "represent" their atheism and present a decent argument. What is your stand?

For the future, I'm working on planet habitability and whether we'll be able to become multiplanetary.



That's a weak answer. Are you a weak atheist or agnostic? What if I said, we don't know if God exists. That is the only valid answer. That would make me agnostic to you, I think, and you know I'm not. I'm Christian and come to represent and fight for creation science and that science (when the science starts to settle in the battle between CS and AS) backs up the Bible. Yes, teaching it in school, too. Will have to take the God part out, so as it is not religion.



As I stated, that's a topic for another time. We do not have to visit other planets in order to learn what we need to know about them. Probes and observation by powerful telescopes, such as the upcoming James Webb one, is sufficient. That's what Carl Sagan believed, too.



I'll read it, but can you figure anything else from it unless they tell you THEIR findings?

What a load of nonsense. You may have posted your opinion based on an oxymoron but you have most certainly not learned anything. What you have done is made dictats with not a shred of evidence to back them up.

Dont want to take a stand? Then why do many people telling you facts and you ignoring them?

Wrong, that is what you want to hear for an answer. I am quit happy with the fact that no evidence exists for aliens. And no, i am a very strong atheist, i know no god exits. So when you get creation science taught in schools, America will become a 3 rd world country.

Yes i have already discussed the Kepler findings. Seems you ignored that discussion so you could say exactly the same thing as your idea. Kind of pathetic when the evidence precedes your post.

And still whether you consider it weak or it just doesn't fit in your bubble whether alien life, exists, is rare or common is moot, we don't know. That is the only valid answer.

Unless you can prove otherwise, or are you too weak?

 

[james bond]

Hmmm! When did you start experiencing these hallucinations Mr. Bond?

Whereas the assumption that the earth - and human life - is not only dead center but the entire purpose of the vast universe is a perfectly rational interpretation of the actual data...provided one ignores the evidence of astronomy, biology, cosmology, ...well you get the idea.

I would say hallucinations and make believe are abiogenesis and macroevolution.

What I am basing on is creation science.

You understand the difference that atheist scientists have of the age of the earth and age of the universe that light takes time to reach us from the far ends of the universe. From Starlight and Time by Dr. Russell Humphreys, we get achronicity or timelessness similar to what happens at the event horizon near a black hole.

A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 1

A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 2

>>S: Whereas the assumption that the earth - and human life - is not only dead center but the entire purpose of the vast universe is a perfectly rational interpretation of the actual data...provided one ignores the evidence of astronomy, biology, cosmology, ...well you get the idea.<<

It's interesting that you state creation scientists ignore the evidence of astronomy, biology, cosmology, geology, paleontology and zoology. Might as well list them all. Creation scientists follow atheist science like other scientists. To the contrary, it's atheist scientists who systematically ignore creation science. Creation scientists cannot publish their papers in Nature and Science. And underneath all this shenanigans, the atheist scientists "steal" ideas from creation scientists when they are stuck for an answer. It's the evolution of the gaps.

Read the above articles. Likely, we'll be seeing some of the ideas in regular cosmology with no credit going to Dr. Humphreys.

EDIT: On other discussions on evolution, some of the internet atheist posters leave out origins discussions with claims such as evolution only relates to biology. That allows them to leave out much of creation science because they have no answers and it makes them uncomfortable since we're all for science.

 

[ChristineM]

I would say hallucinations and make believe are abiogenesis and macroevolution.

What I am basing on is creation science.

You understand the difference that atheist scientists have of the age of the earth and age of the universe that light takes time to reach us from the far ends of the universe. From Starlight and Time by Dr. Russell Humphreys, we get achronicity or timelessness similar to what happens at the event horizon near a black hole.

A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 1

A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 2

>>S: Whereas the assumption that the earth - and human life - is not only dead center but the entire purpose of the vast universe is a perfectly rational interpretation of the actual data...provided one ignores the evidence of astronomy, biology, cosmology, ...well you get the idea.<<

It's interesting that you state creation scientists ignore the evidence of astronomy, biology, cosmology, geology, paleontology and zoology. Might as well list them all. Creation scientists follow atheist science like other scientists. To the contrary, it's atheist scientists who systematically ignore creation science. Creation scientists cannot publish their papers in Nature and Science. And underneath all this shenanigans, the atheist scientists "steal" ideas from creation scientists when they are stuck for an answer. It's the evolution of the gaps.

Read the above articles. Likely, we'll be seeing some of the ideas in regular cosmology with no credit going to Dr. Humphreys.

EDIT: On other discussions on evolution, some of the internet atheist posters leave out origins discussions with claims such as evolution only relates to biology. That allows them to leave out much of creation science because they have no answers and it makes them uncomfortable since we're all for science.

What??? Scratches head in amazement that someone can not only twist facts but essentially turn them into 'stcaf'

Re your edit how are non biological chemicals biological? Please get your creation scientists to explain.

It allows them to leave out creation science because creation science is irrelevant

 

[siti]

Read the above articles. Likely, we'll be seeing some of the ideas in regular cosmology with no credit going to Dr. Humphreys.

I should think the probability of this happening would be slightly less than the probability of intelligent life being discovered at a creation science sermon at Dinosaur Adventure Land next Sunday morning.

Creation scientists cannot publish their papers in Nature and Science.

Yes - I read the linked articles and I can quite see why this 'research' didn't get published in Nature...maybe if there was a humor page!

EDIT: On other discussions on evolution, some of the internet atheist posters leave out origins discussions with claims such as evolution only relates to biology. That allows them to leave out much of creation science because they have no answers and it makes them uncomfortable since we're all for science.

Not me. I think evolution is a really good explanatory framework for everything - from the existence of the cosmos to the emergence of biological life and its subsequent development. And I am certainly not uncomfortable enough about having no definitive answer to how life on earth began to be clutching at blind credulity as an answer.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Creation Science isn't published because it's 90% nonsense.

Case and point:

A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 1

1)TIME STANDS STILL

• This is only true if things could ever be motionless. From their own citation, (A Brief History of Time) motionlessness is an impossibility.

2) SPACE IS LIKE A SCROLL

• Citing the Bible is not evidence.
• Space is very obviously not like a scroll...
• They provide no other supporting evidence.

3)THE ANALOGY OF THE TRAMPOLINE

• They're misleading their audience with a simple analogy and then expanding on those misconceptions by bringing up a supposed "hollow sphere", which doesn't exist.
• Space exists inside of this imaginary circle just as it does outside. The only difference being opposing gravitational influences. (This is why the Moon orbits the Earth and not the Sun, and why the Moon has it's own satellites which don't orbit the Earth, etc...)
  
• To claim otherwise is to contradict themselves and the observable world around us.

4) THE BEGINNING OF THE SECOND DAY OF CREATION

• It looks like they've made the prior inaccurate statements in order to fit their creation narrative, which is fine, I guess. It's dishonest, though.

A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 2

5) THE SECOND DAY OF CREATION

• This is, again, another expansion of the faulty explanations of how space works and is like a trampoline...
• The "metal ring" scenario is completely bonkers if you try to apply it to any other observed astronomical phenomenon.

6)THE REMAINING DAYS OF CREATION

• You're starting to get into some even more dubious claims that revolve around special pleading, are based on nothing but Bible quotes, and are not substantiated anywhere else in observational studies...

7) A LIGHT_TRANSIT TIME SCENARIO ON DAY 4

• To paraphrase: "Imagine a whole host of implausible scenarios where everything we've ever discovered was thrown out and we never questioned ourselves... In that case, the Biblical account of creation would be spot on!"

And just so you can't say I didn't real ALL of it...
A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 3

8) THE EFFECT OF STRETCHING THE HEAVENS

• So, if the bad analogy of the trampoline, the inaccurate depiction of the scroll, and the imaginary Science of fake time were actually plausible, then the problem of starlight not coinciding with Biblical explanations would kinda/sorta make sense...
• (It seems like a whole lot of hoops to jump through, don't you think?)

9) A SECOND TIME-DILATION EPISODE DURING THE GENESIS FLOOD

• Cause if that first set of mental hoola hoops didn't tire you out already, we're now going to add more!
• They try and fix even more errors with their timeline by suggesting a second set of ridiculous and unsupported events took place which helps align their storytelling.
• Even as a faithful adherent, you see the problem here, don't you?

10) COSMIC TIME VERSUS EARTH TIME

• This is utter nonsense.

11) INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE FOR TIME-DILATION

• Time dilation is actually a thing.
• These two guys seem to know nothing about it.
• They also don't seem to understand what "independent study" actually means.
• And, surprise surprise, there's another magical gravity-well argument...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To summarize, if you make a bunch of faulty claims, teach people bad science using half-assed explanations, and make a lot of unsupported excuses, then you can come out with a timeline that loosely resembles the mishmash of stuff that's found in the Bible...

Well, are you surprised that the answer they wanted was the answer they found?

Apologetics is not Science.

I contend that Creation "Scientists" and their intellectual dishonesty have done more to damage to their cause, and their faith, than any "atheist scientist" could ever hope to inflict. Poorly attempting to prove that the Bible was a Science Textbook is not faith - it's the opposite.