Where Is Everybody? Where Are The Aliens?

[ChristineM]

You're missing an important point in that advanced alien civilizations would have been around longer than us. And atheist scientists say that we are a mediocre planet and not in any prominent position. Thus, putting my atheist science cap on, we would be a lesser civilization to the advanced ones. Notice I didn't argue against one poster claiming why would aliens want to visit or contact us since we are so backward? It not likely because we send off probes to find microbes on Mars, but it could be one reason.

Modern humans are that old. Were you asleep that day in evolution class? And why does it mean that radio astronomy the only way to contact a mediocre, but intelligent civilization? Advanced aliens would figure it out. Fermi must've thought this, as well. Why do you discredit Fermi?

Those Skylab experiments appear to be inside the space craft. Not outside or on a moon or planet.

Yes, I do. I even said that Drake didn't have the plausible values. However, the link I posted corrected it and used the Monte Carlo method to boot. C'mon this is Cornell U where Carl Sagan went.

Speaking of Sagan, he backs up what I have been saying about more advanced aliens and their technology.

"So, if you postulate the existence of highly technical civilizations, thousands, much less millions of years in our future, unless the hypothesis strongly contradicts known laws of physics, I think you have to say it's possible (alien abductions). So, travel at very high speeds between the stars, that's by no means out of the question."

Carl Sagan on Alien Abduction — NOVA | PBS

Carl Sagan was a liberal, but also a pantheist. Much of the media reported him as atheist which is wrong. This guy was an alien believer, but never got to find one.

""Every now and then, when I am working or I am shaving or something like that, I hear—as clear as a bell—one of them saying my name: `Carl,' just like that.... It's unmistakable. I know whose voice it is.... I turn around before I can do any cerebration on it.... [Memory of their voices] has to be in many different parts of my brain. And it's not surprising that my brain would sort of, you know, play it back ... every now and then."

When Sagan repeated this story publicly, parapsychology buffs misunderstood his meaning. They excitedly spread the rumor (in words to this effect): "Carl Sagan, the king of skeptics, is in psychic contact with his dead parents!" Pseudoscientists and occultists were always misunderstanding Sagan. He was the best-known scientist of his time, and they yearned to convert him to their various causes. And it is true that throughout his life, Sagan proposed many unusual ideas, some so unusual that his more conventional colleagues scorned him as a sensationalist, a headline grabber. But for all his fancies, Sagan was too good a scientist to be fooled by his brain's neurological mirages; he was too confident an atheist to think he would ever see or hear his parents again, no matter how much he loved and missed them. The skeptic inside him—the "Rachel" inside him—knew better."

Carl Sagan

You are missing the point that as far as is known nothing travels faster than light.

And then you start filling in gaps with your personal opinion.

I don't discredit Fermi .Fermi was a world leading nuclear physicist. He did not write the so called Fermi paradox which was totally out of his field of expertise. It's you discrediting him by attributing a myth to a great man
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-fermi-paradox-is-not-fermi-s-and-it-is-not-a-paradox/

Sagan died over 20 year's ago. And i would like to know how he knew anything valid about aliens?

 

[Polymath257]

You're missing an important point in that advanced alien civilizations would have been around longer than us. And atheist scientists say that we are a mediocre planet and not in any prominent position. Thus, putting my atheist science cap on, we would be a lesser civilization to the advanced ones. Notice I didn't argue against one poster claiming why would aliens want to visit or contact us since we are so backward? It not likely because we send off probes to find microbes on Mars, but it could be one reason.

Modern humans are that old. Were you asleep that day in evolution class? And why does it mean that radio astronomy the only way to contact a mediocre, but intelligent civilization? Advanced aliens would figure it out. Fermi must've thought this, as well. Why do you discredit Fermi?

Those Skylab experiments appear to be inside the space craft. Not outside or on a moon or planet.

Yes, I do. I even said that Drake didn't have the plausible values. However, the link I posted corrected it and used the Monte Carlo method to boot. C'mon this is Cornell U where Carl Sagan went.

Speaking of Sagan, he backs up what I have been saying about more advanced aliens and their technology.

"So, if you postulate the existence of highly technical civilizations, thousands, much less millions of years in our future, unless the hypothesis strongly contradicts known laws of physics, I think you have to say it's possible (alien abductions). So, travel at very high speeds between the stars, that's by no means out of the question."

Carl Sagan on Alien Abduction — NOVA | PBS

Carl Sagan was a liberal, but also a pantheist. Much of the media reported him as atheist which is wrong. This guy was an alien believer, but never got to find one.

""Every now and then, when I am working or I am shaving or something like that, I hear—as clear as a bell—one of them saying my name: `Carl,' just like that.... It's unmistakable. I know whose voice it is.... I turn around before I can do any cerebration on it.... [Memory of their voices] has to be in many different parts of my brain. And it's not surprising that my brain would sort of, you know, play it back ... every now and then."

When Sagan repeated this story publicly, parapsychology buffs misunderstood his meaning. They excitedly spread the rumor (in words to this effect): "Carl Sagan, the king of skeptics, is in psychic contact with his dead parents!" Pseudoscientists and occultists were always misunderstanding Sagan. He was the best-known scientist of his time, and they yearned to convert him to their various causes. And it is true that throughout his life, Sagan proposed many unusual ideas, some so unusual that his more conventional colleagues scorned him as a sensationalist, a headline grabber. But for all his fancies, Sagan was too good a scientist to be fooled by his brain's neurological mirages; he was too confident an atheist to think he would ever see or hear his parents again, no matter how much he loved and missed them. The skeptic inside him—the "Rachel" inside him—knew better."

Carl Sagan

To travel at high speeds take a LOT of energy. To go 86% of the speed of light takes as much energy as the atomic bomb over Hiroshima *for each gram that is moving*. To go fast enough that serious time dilation happens requires much, much more.

The pure economics of such seems problematic. And let's face it, the question of whether those civilizations *do* last much longer than us *at a technological level* is seriously in doubt. At that point, the likelihood of overlap in time becomes small.

 

[columbus]

So, you're admitting that our understanding of evolution is really primitive and murky?

Not really, I wasn't talking about evolution. This thread is about the origins of life, not what evolved afterwards.
Why do creationist insist on confusing those two things?
There is still vast amounts to learn about evolution, although we have come a long way in the last century or so. The origins of life are still far less understood than evolution, although progress is being made on that mystery as well. Nevertheless, our primitive and murky understanding of abiogenesis has little to with evolution.

Or it doesn't apply to planets outside our own? You think the lack of aliens is due to us being an outlier? That sounds more like what the creation scientists have been saying.

In closing, you say you think life originated elsewhere such as Venus. It sounds like panspermia. It's not mainstream evolution. Life happened here. That's what creation scientists and most atheists scientists agree on (until they can't find how it exactly started, i.e. the murky part).

The rest of this is just so much strawman argument. I didn't say I think life originated on Venus, only that if it had it would be beyond our current understanding of life. And Venus is far and away the most similar body in the universe, to earth, that we know about. The small differences between earth and Venus are enough to make life there, as we know it, impossible.

But who knows what we will find out in the future?
Tom

 

[Polymath257]

I've read this argument, too, that the earth is not special. If other systems like our solar system or earth's position with the sun exist and have a habitable zone, then why no contact? I would think Enrico Fermi thought the same thing and had in mind what you described. We are assuming the same factors when I wear my atheist science cap -- that there are other systems like the earth and that it's not special. Carl Sagan thought the same thing and he never discovered aliens despite his efforts. We'll probably end up the same way unless one knows they can live another 40 - 60 years by your previous post.

>>PM: I thought the idea was that any intelligent alien species would inevitably colonise the galaxy given enough time. Why doesn't that apply to humans too?<<

I'm putting on my science cap and not my Christian cap. For one, if we're not alive to see it, then does it matter? Many people wants us to be multiplanetary, but the actual logistics, cost and finding a close enough planet to support our cabon based life is slim. Toxins can get in the way. The need for water and oxygen can get in the way. The temperature or density of the atmosphere can get in the way. Gravity can become an obstacle. The skeptics think there will be an extinction event before then, too, such as global warming or gamma ray bursts.

When Fermi was alive, we didn't know of any planets not orbiting the sun. Same for Sagan.

 

[james bond]

Here's a good explanation. Maybe we are aliens having been colonized already ha ha ha ha.

 

[james bond]

Not really, I wasn't talking about evolution. This thread is about the origins of life, not what evolved afterwards.
Why do creationist insist on confusing those two things?
There is still vast amounts to learn about evolution, although we have come a long way in the last century or so. The origins of life are still far less understood than evolution, although progress is being made on that mystery as well. Nevertheless, our primitive and murky understanding of abiogenesis has little to with evolution.

The rest of this is just so much strawman argument. I didn't say I think life originated on Venus, only that if it had it would be beyond our current understanding of life. And Venus is far and away the most similar body in the universe, to earth, that we know about. The small differences between earth and Venus are enough to make life there, as we know it, impossible.

But who knows what we will find out in the future?
Tom

I'm not confusing the two, but pointing evolutionary thinking was in place already when Fermi said his now famous quote. I just checked again and mainstream creationism has now taken a stronger stand on intelligent aliens and why no aliens from what they were saying a year ago. A year ago, I already thought there was more evidence for God when there was no contact due to NO ALIENS and applied what we understand from Scripture on it. That said, you notice no atheist science website uses that as a theory when it is a possibility.

Again, it's not strawman, but creation science thinking. It's tiring answering people who insist evolution is only about biology. These people don't know what they're talking about. They're what I call internet atheists or lemmings. I've done enough studying from evolution.berkeley.com, over fifteen years ago now, to know evolution includes evolutionary thinking and discusses origins.

As for your last comment, I know what we'll find in the future. NO ALIENS!!!

 

[whirlingmerc]

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.

Most of us know about Drake's Equation when discussing aliens. Yet, even if we acknowledge that Drake did not make his parameters correct in his equation, there has been enough time for SETI to have made extraterrestrial contact or aliens to have made contact with SETI. If there are intelligent alien civilizations and other planets like earth in the universe, then they would have the power to be able to fly and colonize the universe as we would. They should have been here if they possessed superior technology to ours. This lack of contact by extraterrestrials led Dr. Enrico Fermi to suddenly exclaim, "Where is Everybody?" during a lunch he was having with distinguished scientist colleagues in 1961 after a discussion about ETs.

A Numerical Testbed for Hypotheses of Extraterrestrial Life and Intelligence
[0810.2222] A Numerical Testbed for Hypotheses of Extraterrestrial Life and Intelligence

"Our Galaxy Should Be Teeming With Civilizations, But Where Are They?

Is there obvious proof that we could be alone in the Galaxy? Enrico Fermi thought so -- and he was a pretty smart guy. Might he have been right?

It's been a hundred years since Fermi, an icon of physics, was born (and nearly a half-century since he died). He's best remembered for building a working atomic reactor in a squash court. But in 1950, Fermi made a seemingly innocuous lunchtime remark that has caught and held the attention of every SETI researcher since. (How many luncheon quips have you made with similar consequence?)

The remark came while Fermi was discussing with his mealtime mates the possibility that many sophisticated societies populate the Galaxy. They thought it reasonable to assume that we have a lot of cosmic company. But somewhere between one sentence and the next, Fermi's supple brain realized that if this was true, it implied something profound. If there are really a lot of alien societies, then some of them might have spread out.

Fermi realized that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire Galaxy. Within ten million years, every star system could be brought under the wing of empire. Ten million years may sound long, but in fact it's quite short compared with the age of the Galaxy, which is roughly ten thousand million years. Colonization of the Milky Way should be a quick exercise.

So what Fermi immediately realized was that the aliens have had more than enough time to pepper the Galaxy with their presence. But looking around, he didn't see any clear indication that they're out and about. This prompted Fermi to ask what was (to him) an obvious question: "where is everybody?"

Fermi Paradox | SETI Institute

Thus, the Fermi Paradox provides more evidence of God.

In addition to this, we have found that fine tuning prohibits life on other planets unless they are finely tuned like earth. Has there been experiments done where they take earth creatures to see if they can survive on the moon? We already know they can survive in outer space, but can they survive and thrive on the moon? If they can't, then it's more evidence for the fine tuning theory.

We are the aliens. We are alienated from God and need reconciliation.

 

[james bond]

To travel at high speeds take a LOT of energy. To go 86% of the speed of light takes as much energy as the atomic bomb over Hiroshima *for each gram that is moving*. To go fast enough that serious time dilation happens requires much, much more.

The pure economics of such seems problematic. And let's face it, the question of whether those civilizations *do* last much longer than us *at a technological level* is seriously in doubt. At that point, the likelihood of overlap in time becomes small.

I doubt advanced aliens would use conservation as reason why not to investigate. They would send a probe and then visit if they found life, i.e. they would do what we are doing. They may not visit over a microbe or finding cats and dogs, but they would over discovering intelligent life, albeit more carefully, since we have nuclear weapons. However, during Fermi's time, there wasn't a proliferation of nukes. Why didn't they visit back then? I think Fermi's reaction was genuine. When he seriously thought about it, we should've already been contacted.

Putting my creation hat back on, the simplest explanation for no evidence of aliens is there are no aliens. Why? They weren't created as I inferred about a year ago.

 

[james bond]

We are the aliens. We are alienated from God and need reconciliation.

I'm glad you admitted that evolution is bunk. We are aliens and were populated by aliens.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the aliens were more advanced than us, then they would have had radio waves for a longer time. Since they are further out from us, their civilizations would have existed for a longer time.

And how are we supposed to sift out the noise from such a small source over such a great distance? Have you even bothered with the math? At that distance we cannot even pick out individual stars, unless they are supernovas, how are we supposed to pick out the relatively extremely weak radio signals from a planet?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I do, and it helps my Christian argument greatly which is why you are against it. Fine-tuning gives us physical constants of nature such as the strength of gravity and electromagnetism must be in a narrow range of values for the life in the universe to form. Atheist Stephen Hawking has said that the size of the charge of an electron or the ratio of protons to electrons have to be in a remarkably precise range for life to exist. To explain the present state of the universe, scientific theories require precise values of density and temperature. Hawking was one of people who found fine tuning.

Please, you can't use a concept that you do not understand in a debate. Though that is the standard creationist strategy.

Here's what Hawking said in his Grand Design book,

"The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some to the idea that this grand design has a Grand Designer…True, the laws of the universe seem tailor made for humans.”

*“Many improbable occurrences conspire to create Earth’s human friendly design… We need liquid water to exist, and if the earth were too close (to the sun) it would all but boil off; if it is too far it would freeze…(or) even a small disturbance in gravity…would send the planet off it’s orbit and cause it to spiral into or away from the sun.”

* “It is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seems oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe-and its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor made to support us and if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration…The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elements- especially carbon could be produced and remain stable…Even that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could disperse the heavier elements through space.”

* “(At the atomic level) if protons were just 0.2% heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms, again of course making all life impossible…(So) most of the…laws of nature appear fine tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amount, the universe would be…unsuitable for the development of life…The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine tuned.”

Sorry, quote mines are worthless in a debate when used by creationists. The vast majority of the time when they do so they are merely lying by quoting out of context. I can play that game too:

"there is no god". From the Bible. At least 12 different times. Requiring you to find each and ever example and proving that I took that quote out of context would be dishonest on my part. You just played that game. If you want to quote someone that disagrees with you a link to the original source is a must.

 

[Polymath257]

I doubt advanced aliens would use conservation as reason why not to investigate. They would send a probe and then visit if they found life, i.e. they would do what we are doing. They may not visit over a microbe or finding cats and dogs, but they would over discovering intelligent life, albeit more carefully, since we have nuclear weapons. However, during Fermi's time, there wasn't a proliferation of nukes. Why didn't they visit back then? I think Fermi's reaction was genuine. When he seriously thought about it, we should've already been contacted.

Putting my creation hat back on, the simplest explanation for no evidence of aliens is there are no aliens. Why? They weren't created as I inferred about a year ago.

You seem to vastly underestimate how large space really is. Light takes a bit over 8 minutes to get from the sun to us. It takes about a second and a half to get from us to the moon. But it take 4 years to get to the *nearest* star other than our sun. It takes 100,000 years to get across our galaxy and around 2 million years to get to the nearest spiral galaxy. And there are hundreds of billions of known galaxies.

Here's what I expect to be true: life is common, but is mostly bacterial or single celled. To get past that seems to be a hard step. But even there, I'd expect plenty of planets in our galaxy to have multicellular life.

But, and this is crucial for the analysis, intelligent life probably doesn't last too long on a cosmic scale. Fermi was guessing 10 million to get across the galaxy (his estimates of the size of the galaxy were low, though). But that assumes that this intelligent life gets outside of their own star system. And *that* is what I expect is a very, very difficult step. In fact, I would not be surprised if *no* species has managed this. The distances are just too large and the requirements for resources are just too much. Yes, perhaps a probe or two, but not the *billions* of probes necessary to do a full reconnaissance of even our galaxy.

Now, one way around this is to figure out a way to build self-reproducing probes that can mine, say, asteroids and produce (and program) new probes with the same capabilities. But even here, that would be an incredibly slow process, would require the resources of a whole stellar system, and would not be able to get the information back to the original species within tens of thousands of years (for nearly exploration).

So, what's the value to these aliens for producing such probes? THEY will never get the information from them. The originals probably owuldn't even see a probe launched, let alone one reach a destination and send information back.

And, like us, I suspect they will have concerns of their own on their own initial planet: pollution, overpopulation, etc would all be concerns. To devote a HUGE amount of resources to finding 'aliens' like us would probably be a low priority for a long, long time. And, let's face it, as technology grows, the chance of a mistake wiping out that particular civilization gets higher.

Remember that to get to higiher technology, they will have to go through lower technology first, just like us. And I truthfully don't expect such middle level technology to last unless the aliens manage to get to be a lot wiser than we are and a lot faster. Technology alone doesn't do it.

Now, suppose that they do manage to get a *few* of their species to other stars. The colonists would be right back at square one in technology within an generation. So the whole cycle would have to start anew each new system. Which is why I would expect that Fermi's estimate (which was assuming a concerted effort to colonize the galaxy) is way, way off.

And, suppose that this technology lasts for 10,000 years and doesn't manage to get out of their own system. Suppose that is an average. The likelihood that two such civilizations will exist at the same time in this galaxy is rather low. Sure, there might be such in other galaxies, but those are many times farher again away and correspondingly harder to detect.

As another consideration, we use radio waves, but do you really expect we will still do so in another 500 years? Do you think they will have the same spread as they do now? I'd doubt it: it's wasteful. And do you really expect we will still be listening for radio waves in another 500 years? Maybe, but probably not for other life. So why would you expect other species to be listening?

All in all, I would not be surprised if there had been other intelligent life in our galaxy that died off. We *might* be the first, but that seems less likely. I also think that intelligent life will inevitably have problems with the physical realities of the distances to other stars, so not galactic civilization is even possible. And so I don't *expect* to be detected or to detect other intelligent life. The signals would be too weak and the distances too great.

 

[Polymath257]

If the aliens were more advanced than us, then they would have had radio waves for a longer time. Since they are further out from us, their civilizations would have existed for a longer time.

Further out? I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean or why it is relevant (except that if they are far away, a detection is more difficult). Yes, though, existing for a longer time would be relevant.

Once again, you are assuming that these aliens have *survived* for billions of years. That seems highly unlikely to me.

Let's think about what that might entail.

First, to be around another 3.5 billion years longer than us, these aliens would have had to get started on a planet that formed 3.5 billion years earlier than the Earth and sun. The problem I can see is that there would have been less of the heavier elements (like carbon and oxygen and nitrogen) on which life depends. Remember that these elements are formed in the interiors of stars and are distributed via supernova, so they don't appear at all until at least one generation of stars has gone through a cycle. Now, some stars do go through cycles faster, so there may have been *some* of these elements earlier on but not nearly as much of them.

And let's consider the development of this alien life. It certainly did NOT start out technological. Instead, it would have evolved from single celled ancestors (like we did). The step to multicellularity on Earth was quite difficult and involved a symbiosis between several lines of bacteria (for example, chloroplasts in plants and mitochondria in general have their own, bacterial style DNA). We can assume it was also a tricky step on other worlds.

Now, one there is multicellular life, an increase in complexity is probably pretty automatic. Nonetheless, we expect a number of 'false starts' where 'brain' size increased but didn't get to a level that allowed abstract thought together with the manipulations required for technology.

But assume that does happen. Now what? Survival at first is still just as difficult and extinction is just as possible as before. Until the technology gets to the place where natural disasters are not as relevant (which was recent even for humans), survival alone isn't a guarantee. But once technology gets going, as we now know, a host of other issues come along: humans now have many more ways to destroy ourselves than we did 100 years ago. We will probably find more soon enough. So the question is whether a species that evolved via natural selection is likely to have the wisdom to survive when they get technology. I'm not convinced *we* do.

But suppose they do. They manage to solve environmental issues and figure out how to power their lives without destroying their planet. Do they have the *extra* resources to go to other planets in *their* star system? Sure, maybe a few small investigations. But actual colonization? Let's face it, our colonizing Mars is not going to be exactly economic. And that is a *close* planet in our own system. Other species would have the same issue. There simply won't be a massive exodus to other planets because the economics won't allow it.

but if moving to other close planets is a problem, getting to other stars is far, far worse. Again, sure, a few probes, with no real expectation for information anytime soon. But where to send the probes? There are a hundred billion stars in our galaxy. The distance across the galaxy is 100,000 light years. Some probes will go to nearby stars, at great expense. But again, a massive campaign isn't a likely scenario.

And don't forget the communication and trade problems. NOTHING is moving faster than the speed of light. So even communication takes years to centuries for *close* contacts. The will lead to fragmentation and a complete lack of coordination in any 'colonization' endeavor. Not to mention that trade simply won't be economic. The costs of interstellar trade just don't allow it: nothing is that valuable.

So that empire you mentioned just doesn't get going. it falls apart before it begins. So, again, there goes detectability, either direction.

There is a LOT more that could be said. As technology improves, waste is eliminated, but that means accidental detection is less likely. The aliens would understand that detecting and contacting other life would be a LONG duration endeavor. Times are measured in thousands of years at least.

And you are wondering why we haven't made contact in a mere 100 years? Really? Our signals have probably not get to anyone else, even if others are out there and common (which I doubt). And a return signal takes twice as long.

 

[Glaurung]

Why would any more advanced aliens want to make contact with us.

To either kill or enslave us and take the planet's resources for the glory of the intergalactic empire.

Or perhaps to probe many backsides...

For reasons...

 

[David1967]

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.

Most of us know about Drake's Equation when discussing aliens. Yet, even if we acknowledge that Drake did not make his parameters correct in his equation, there has been enough time for SETI to have made extraterrestrial contact or aliens to have made contact with SETI. If there are intelligent alien civilizations and other planets like earth in the universe, then they would have the power to be able to fly and colonize the universe as we would. They should have been here if they possessed superior technology to ours. This lack of contact by extraterrestrials led Dr. Enrico Fermi to suddenly exclaim, "Where is Everybody?" during a lunch he was having with distinguished scientist colleagues in 1961 after a discussion about ETs.

A Numerical Testbed for Hypotheses of Extraterrestrial Life and Intelligence
[0810.2222] A Numerical Testbed for Hypotheses of Extraterrestrial Life and Intelligence

"Our Galaxy Should Be Teeming With Civilizations, But Where Are They?

Is there obvious proof that we could be alone in the Galaxy? Enrico Fermi thought so -- and he was a pretty smart guy. Might he have been right?

It's been a hundred years since Fermi, an icon of physics, was born (and nearly a half-century since he died). He's best remembered for building a working atomic reactor in a squash court. But in 1950, Fermi made a seemingly innocuous lunchtime remark that has caught and held the attention of every SETI researcher since. (How many luncheon quips have you made with similar consequence?)

The remark came while Fermi was discussing with his mealtime mates the possibility that many sophisticated societies populate the Galaxy. They thought it reasonable to assume that we have a lot of cosmic company. But somewhere between one sentence and the next, Fermi's supple brain realized that if this was true, it implied something profound. If there are really a lot of alien societies, then some of them might have spread out.

Fermi realized that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire Galaxy. Within ten million years, every star system could be brought under the wing of empire. Ten million years may sound long, but in fact it's quite short compared with the age of the Galaxy, which is roughly ten thousand million years. Colonization of the Milky Way should be a quick exercise.

So what Fermi immediately realized was that the aliens have had more than enough time to pepper the Galaxy with their presence. But looking around, he didn't see any clear indication that they're out and about. This prompted Fermi to ask what was (to him) an obvious question: "where is everybody?"

Fermi Paradox | SETI Institute

Thus, the Fermi Paradox provides more evidence of God.

In addition to this, we have found that fine tuning prohibits life on other planets unless they are finely tuned like earth. Has there been experiments done where they take earth creatures to see if they can survive on the moon? We already know they can survive in outer space, but can they survive and thrive on the moon? If they can't, then it's more evidence for the fine tuning theory.

Where are they? I think the ones advanced enough to make contact with us dont want to. I mean, think about it. If you were an extremely advanced extra terrestrial civilization, would you want to turn us loose on the galaxy? With our propensity for destruction toward each other and our own planet , they probably have us isolated (quarantined) until we develop past this.

 

[Bird123]

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.

Most of us know about Drake's Equation when discussing aliens. Yet, even if we acknowledge that Drake did not make his parameters correct in his equation, there has been enough time for SETI to have made extraterrestrial contact or aliens to have made contact with SETI. If there are intelligent alien civilizations and other planets like earth in the universe, then they would have the power to be able to fly and colonize the universe as we would. They should have been here if they possessed superior technology to ours. This lack of contact by extraterrestrials led Dr. Enrico Fermi to suddenly exclaim, "Where is Everybody?" during a lunch he was having with distinguished scientist colleagues in 1961 after a discussion about ETs.

A Numerical Testbed for Hypotheses of Extraterrestrial Life and Intelligence
[0810.2222] A Numerical Testbed for Hypotheses of Extraterrestrial Life and Intelligence

"Our Galaxy Should Be Teeming With Civilizations, But Where Are They?

Is there obvious proof that we could be alone in the Galaxy? Enrico Fermi thought so -- and he was a pretty smart guy. Might he have been right?

It's been a hundred years since Fermi, an icon of physics, was born (and nearly a half-century since he died). He's best remembered for building a working atomic reactor in a squash court. But in 1950, Fermi made a seemingly innocuous lunchtime remark that has caught and held the attention of every SETI researcher since. (How many luncheon quips have you made with similar consequence?)

The remark came while Fermi was discussing with his mealtime mates the possibility that many sophisticated societies populate the Galaxy. They thought it reasonable to assume that we have a lot of cosmic company. But somewhere between one sentence and the next, Fermi's supple brain realized that if this was true, it implied something profound. If there are really a lot of alien societies, then some of them might have spread out.

Fermi realized that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire Galaxy. Within ten million years, every star system could be brought under the wing of empire. Ten million years may sound long, but in fact it's quite short compared with the age of the Galaxy, which is roughly ten thousand million years. Colonization of the Milky Way should be a quick exercise.

So what Fermi immediately realized was that the aliens have had more than enough time to pepper the Galaxy with their presence. But looking around, he didn't see any clear indication that they're out and about. This prompted Fermi to ask what was (to him) an obvious question: "where is everybody?"

Fermi Paradox | SETI Institute

Thus, the Fermi Paradox provides more evidence of God.

In addition to this, we have found that fine tuning prohibits life on other planets unless they are finely tuned like earth. Has there been experiments done where they take earth creatures to see if they can survive on the moon? We already know they can survive in outer space, but can they survive and thrive on the moon? If they can't, then it's more evidence for the fine tuning theory.

Currently, mankind is just getting to the level where they can spot planets around other suns. Our observation technology is very limited.

Why has seti not found anyone? Simple. The really advanced aliens are not using radio waves for communication. The primitive ones who do are very very far away and by the time the radio waves reach Earth, they are distorted or a billion years old.

As I see it, the great distance between the planets exist for a reason. Only when one acquires the intelligence to reach another living world does one have the intelligence to leave it alone. Do you really think mankind is ready to interact with aliens from other worlds?

For the aliens who have visited Earth, why do you think they want to interact with humans? They surely realize mankind isn't ready for advanced technology. Aliens do not want to make a mess of this world. They study the science then move on.

Many people who claim they were abducted by aliens simply want attention. Don't believe the stories of all those probes. Right now with MRI mankind has the ability to look inside a person pretty well. Can you imagine what aliens have reached? Further, they would also have the ability to erase short term memory.

The answers are all around us. Perhaps it takes advanced thinking to understand advanced aliens. When mankind reaches that point, they will discover them.

 

[Father Heathen]

I didn't want to copy and paste from the past threads that had already thoroughly refuted this silly argument, but since this garbage thread is still going, here ya go:

"take this into consideration: there are 100-200 billion galaxies, and ours alone (The Milky Way) has an estimated hundred thousand million stars. Mathematically, it would be rather absurd for life to have only developed upon a single planet orbiting one particular star (our Sun)."
"Our own earliest broadcasts have only reached around 120 light years out, and our own galaxy is about 100,000 light years across, and the distances between galaxies tend to be from 1 to 13 billion light years apart."
"50k light years is only halfway across our own galaxy, we wouldn't be getting signals from any contemporary civilizations unless they were very close, relatively speaking. Given the vast distance, any signals we get would have to be ancient otherwise."
"You do realize that a "light year" is the distance light travels in a year, right? Humans first radio transmissions were around 1895, so about 120 years. Radio waves move at the speed of light, meaning the furthest our own transitions have reached is 120 light years. Again, our own galaxy is about 100,000 light years wide, and our galaxy is only one of out trillions of others.
It took Voyager 1 (the fastest man-made object at 38,610 mph) 35 years to exit our solar system (launched 1975 and crossed the heliopause in 2012).
Also, if the universe was only 6,000 to 10,000 years old, the sky would be mostly black, as light from the vast majority of stars wouldn't have have reached earth yet."
Again, as I've repeatedly pointed out, there are trillions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, (to put it into perspective, there are more stars than their are grains of sand on earth, and we've discovered earth-like planets from what is an infinitesimally small sample of that) and the distances between stars varies of course but it takes LIGHT 4 years just to reach our own star's closest neighbor, and it can take light billionsof years to span the distance between galaxies. Yet you completely ignore this and talk as if any form of intelligent life can simply hop in a rocket, plant their flag on every potentially inhabitable planet, and be home in time for dinner. This would require technology that's significantly faster than light (which is impossible, according to Eisenstein) or can instantaneously teleport via "wormhole", both of which you suggest would be "easy".
"1/10 of light speed is roughly 67 million MPH. The fastest man made objects travel at around 150k mph."

Thus we flush the OP's argument down the toilet. ...and those who wish to remain willfully ignorant about it can hop in, too.

 

[james bond]

And how are we supposed to sift out the noise from such a small source over such a great distance? Have you even bothered with the math? At that distance we cannot even pick out individual stars, unless they are supernovas, how are we supposed to pick out the relatively extremely weak radio signals from a planet?

Probably a question for SETI as to our current technology. If they're more advanced than us, then they would figure out a way.

 

[james bond]

Please, you can't use a concept that you do not understand in a debate. Though that is the standard creationist strategy.




Sorry, quote mines are worthless in a debate when used by creationists. The vast majority of the time when they do so they are merely lying by quoting out of context. I can play that game too:

"there is no god". From the Bible. At least 12 different times. Requiring you to find each and ever example and proving that I took that quote out of context would be dishonest on my part. You just played that game. If you want to quote someone that disagrees with you a link to the original source is a must.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. It's a common response for internet atheists to claim quote mining and refer to standard creationist strategy whatever that is. I guess you mean standard creationist argument. My argument for no aliens is further evidence for God is my own since the Bible does not mention God creating them. A second argument is no aliens means that science backs up the Bible (which atheist scientists have not stated yet). I said that over a year ago, and now it's accepted by mainstream creationism. They're saying there are no aliens. This means that the creator didn't create aliens.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Probably a question for SETI as to our current technology. If they're more advanced than us, then they would figure out a way.

SETI may actually be a waste of money. Unless a civilization tried to signal us we probably could not find one from passive radiation of radio signals. And why would a civilization signal us? They would have no reason to assume that we were civilized.