Where Is Everybody? Where Are The Aliens?

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Unless you can support your claims properly then quote mining is probably what you did. I simply asked you to properly support your claims. The fact that you won't or can't lends credence to the quote mining hypothesis. And no, your argument is not evidence for God. You do not seem to understand the concept of evidence. Perhaps we should go over that first.

And no one is saying that there are no aliens. Where did you get that idea from? You don't seem to even be able to follow the refutations of your claims. Perhaps you should slow down a bit and flesh out your ideas more fully, one step at a time. Plus if you want to claim a "creator" you are putting the burden of proof upon yourself. You keep digging the hole that you are in deeper and deeper.

 

[james bond]

It's interesting that jonathaniq180 believes that aliens lived on Mars in the past. If this is true, then I would think creationists would have to reassess their interpretation of the Bible that God did not create aliens. However, there are no aliens despite Fermi paradox and SETI so their belief still holds true.

I would have to agree with some of the answers as to why no contact. They're pretty good. I think what has been debunked is the distance argument. It would not be a factor for intelligent aliens. Evolutionary thinking would hypothesize that intelligent and more advanced aliens exist somewhere out there. Elon Musk said, even at 20% of speed of light, they would have been able to visit here. SETI has argued the same in the link I posted in the OP.

The really weird thing that atheist science says is that earth is a mediocre planet for habitability. According to the Bible, it is the best planet for habitability of humans, plants and animals. It is at the center of the universe, i.e. geocentrism (No, the sun and other planets do not circle the earth). This also means that the universe is bounded. Not boundless as atheist science states. They also state that the universe has no center. I would think there are other planets in other solar systems that are better than ours. However, Mars is not one of them. Why is that planet habitable? It's the most earth like and the closest one, but I don't think humans, plants and animals can survive there. Yet, Elon Musk thinks we can colonize it. He wants to nuke the ice there to release the water. That's another concept that scientists seem to want to do. Part of it is as defense against future asteroids that are too close to hitting the earth. How long would it take to get close enough to Mars in order to nuke the ice caps at 20% of light speed?

 

[james bond]

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.

Of course, they would know we were civilized. They would be monitoring us now via some probe we are not aware of or a more advanced satellite than ours. One of the arguments is they would be afraid of our nuclear weapons. Stephen Hawking thinks it's not a good idea to try and contact advanced aliens for similar reasons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's interesting that jonathaniq180 believes that aliens lived on Mars in the past. If this is true, then I would think creationists would have to reassess their interpretation of the Bible that God did not create aliens. However, there are no aliens despite Fermi paradox and SETI so their belief still holds true.

I would have to agree with some of the answers as to why no contact. They're pretty good. I think what has been debunked is the distance argument. It would not be a factor for intelligent aliens. Evolutionary thinking would hypothesize that intelligent and more advanced aliens exist somewhere out there. Elon Musk said, even at 20% of speed of light, they would have been able to visit here. SETI has argued the same in the link I posted in the OP.

The really weird thing that atheist science says is that earth is a mediocre planet for habitability. According to the Bible, it is the best planet for habitability of humans, plants and animals. It is at the center of the universe, i.e. geocentrism (No, the sun and other planets do not circle the earth). This also means that the universe is bounded. Not boundless as atheist science states. They also state that the universe has no center. I would think there are other planets in other solar systems that are better than ours. However, Mars is not one of them. Why is that planet habitable? It's the most earth like and the closest one, but I don't think humans, plants and animals can survive there. Yet, Elon Musk thinks we can colonize it. He wants to nuke the ice there to release the water. That's another concept that scientists seem to want to do. Part of it is as defense against future asteroids that are too close to hitting the earth. How long would it take to get close enough to Mars in order to nuke the ice caps at 20% of light speed?

Elon Musk is hardly an authority. Once again, let's flesh out those ideas instead of posting unsupported nonsense.


E

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course, they would know we were civilized. They would be monitoring us now via some probe we are not aware of or a more advanced satellite than ours. One of the arguments is they would be afraid of our nuclear weapons. Stephen Hawking thinks it's not a good idea to try and contact advanced aliens for similar reasons.

Wrong again. Only very nearby aliens could possibly know that we exist.

Here is a simple question for you, how would they know that we exist?

 

[james bond]

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.

Even if I put on my atheist science cap again, I would disagree. Evolutionary thinking would think advanced aliens. Not some microbe, plants or cats and dogs living on another planet . Advanced aliens would find a way to contact us and if they wanted to visit, then they would be able to do so. They would have almost 4 billion years of planetary existence ahead of us. I would estimate they would have double our modern human existence. How much does technology advance in that time? I would agree with Elon Musk that we are being monitored. Even at Fermi's time, they would have had double our modern human existence.

EDIT: Let's say we found their probe. It's like nothing we've ever seen. We can monitor the furthest regions of the universe. If that were to happen, then we would have to reassess human evolution. Then we'd have evidence that they could have visited earth and colonized it.

 

[HonestJoe]

Evolutionary thinking would think advanced aliens. Not some microbe, plants or cats and dogs living on another planet .

The point was that if life evolved on lots of planets, on the vast majority of them it wouldn’t progress very far. Only a small proportion would reach our level of intelligence or beyond.

Advanced aliens would find a way to contact us and if they wanted to visit, then they would be able to do so. They would have almost 4 billion years of planetary existence ahead of us. I would estimate they would have double our modern human existence.

What are you basing those assumptions on? There’s no reason to assume any alien race, however advanced, would have the ability to actually cross however many thousands of light years to reach Earth. I also don’t see why you specific 4 billion years ahead of us when the difference in start of life and pace of evolution on different planets could be almost anything.

You’re still making a whole load of assumptions with zero evidence. Whatever the various conclusions we each come to here, none of us can avoid the cold, hard fact that we don’t know if there are aliens out there, just as we don’t know if there are gods.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The article I linked was on methane found in the form of lakes of methane on the moons of Saturn. No indication of life at all. The methane what we observe today on the Earth is biogenic, that does not mean that was always the case. Your logic is faulty.

Both you and Tom are only focusing on one part of this argument for some reason...
I'll address Methane's state, but I'm asking you to look at the location and spectrometry of microbial mats in relation to these outgassings of Methane. Do that first, and then tell me I'm just blowing gas. (See what I did there?)

Again, bacterial/microbial mats cannot exist without... ??
And if they existed, or are extant, one of their byproducts would have been... ??

For reference:

• https://spacescience.arc.nasa.gov/microbes/STEP/documents/STEP/Microbes@NASA Inside.pdf
  
• Microbial mat - Wikipedia
  
• Meteorite Yields Evidence of Primitive Life on Early Mars (1984-1996)
• NASA Scientist Sees Possible Mat of Martian Microbes (2004)
• Potential Signs of Ancient Life in Mars Rover Photos - Astrobiology Magazine (2012-2015)
  
• Silica deposits on Mars with features resembling hot spring biosignatures at El Tatio in Chile (2016)
  
• The Martian subsurface as a potential window into the origin of life (2017)

Uncanny Similarities to Earthen Samples

• An Unusual Inverted Saline Microbial Mat Community in an Interdune Sabkha in the Rub' al Khali (the Empty Quarter), United Arab Emirates (Similar substrates)
  
• Earliest signs of life on land preserved in ca. 3.5 Ga hot spring deposits (Similar Locations)
• https://www.nature.com/articles/ismej201057 (Similar environments)

Now, Methane's states...
Titan's "water" cycle is Methane-based because of a combination of surface pressure and how cold it is. (-290 degrees F) Methane boils at -257. So it's mostly a liquid on Titan, as you referenced.

For those who don't know or who are wondering - yes. Those are oceans on Titan's surface; Oceans of Methane. Titan has seasons, weather, lakes, streams, oceans, tides, rivers, waterfalls, and static sand dunes which sometimes lift themselves against the direction of the wind!

No one is claiming that Methane is not found in different states, and in different forms, throughout the Solar System. The state, form, amount, release patterns, locations, and timing on Mars, in conjunction with other surface studies mentioned above, are what should be intriguing.

The average temperature on Mars is -67 degrees F. (Into the mid +60s at the equator during the Summer.) So it's impossible for Methane to exist on Mars, in it's natural state, as anything other than a gas. These releases can't possibly come from frozen liquid methane that's evaporating as it warms in the Sun, for example, which does happen in some places on Titan. Even on the coldest day on Mars' poles, Methane is at least 100 degrees past it's boiling point. The Maritan releases must be trapped subsurface pockets (on Earth known primarily to come from biological decay) released during times when Mars subsurface ice layers are thinned by thaw, or a chemical or geological process unique to Mars' chemistry that we are currently unaware of. And I'm open to that possibility - so long as it can be substantiated and not just posited.

For a direct comparison of what I'm talking about:
The Mystery of Methane on Mars and Titan

I realize this is all "Too-long-didn't-read" for most people. But you've asked for an explanation of my positions, and it's certainly a little more distinct than "showing evidence of water", which, I might add, was also mocked when it was first suggested even though the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming. Today, as evidence has continued to pour in over time, everyone and their mother knows that Mars was once a very wet place, with lots of warmth, water, chemistry, and geology... I don't see those claims as being any different than mine that Mars' had a rich biological history.

 

[jonathan180iq]

My contention is if there is intelligent life based on how life evolves, and they use energy, then we should be able to detect them even though we are many light years away.

I think your biggest misunderstanding about Evolutionary Biology is that it is linear, with organisms like Man being the pinnacle. That's simply not how it works - and I would expand to say that's probably why you have such a hard time accepting the Science behind it in the first place.

We are a product of this planet's particular features, both spatial and environmental. Different features, environments, and variables will ultimately lead to different evolutionary paths. That's the very premise of Evolutionary Theory; and it's one that I believe is lost on far too many people.

It's folly to assume that life necessarily has to be anything like us at all. A Supermicrobe, for example, which feeds off of all organic and inorganic structures, would be considered more evolutionarily successful than bipedal, sapient, Aliens who have worked hard for 300,000 years to coloinze their Solar System.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'm going by the Cornell study (quantify inhabitable planets) and what Fermi deduced (time in 1961, technology available back then, etc.). He's known to be able to come up with good estimates for probability of what seems like difficult to answer events. His brain is able to figure out the parameters such as what Drake did and do the calculations. The following explains more about what Fermi thought.

Fermi's Paradox

The way I see it, a probe is better to deduce answers to the Fermi paradox.

Quite simply, Fermi's Paradox is based on a whole handful of misnomers.
It's a great thought puzzle, if you accept those misnomers. But it's little more than that.

(What those misnomers; ie, flaws are; have been spelled out many times in the first responses to you.)

>>j: Given the expanse that needs to be searched, the limitations of our vision, and the often-overlooked necessity for civilizations to coexist and have evolved to the same point at the same period in history makes the overall prospect of actually running into a contemporary civilization incredibly slim...<<

Where are you getting your conclusion, i.e. last paragraph, from?

Hint: Even SETI accepts the Fermi paradox and has their own answers if you read the next few pages past the one I linked in the OP.

It comes from a reasonable understanding of the requirements of an exploratory civilization communicating with another based on the limiting realities of Space and Time.

Simple Analogy
If I throw a football to a receiver, and I have to lead him by 300,000 years instead of just 30 feet, what do you think the chances are that he'll catch that football? Given how far he'll have to run and how long he'll have to run for, what do you think the chances are that he and his subsequent offspring will even be alive at the point of reception? Given how far away he must be, how would I know he was there, even if he was the greatest receiver ever born?

We are literally throwing a football into the darkness and we will likely never know if, or when, it is ever caught. If one day a football just lands in our laps, it will be the result of billions of years worth of luck.

Just a Bit Less Simple
Like I said, we've been broadcasting our presence as a species for about 100 years. Beyond the distance of 100 Light Years, No one (were they to exist) could even possibly know we were here. Will we even be around in another 100 years? 250? 500? If we are, will our external focus remain the same?

Let's say that over the next 50,000 years, we advance wildly as a species and colonize the whole Solar System... Well, we would have been broadcasting our radio presence for 50,000 years, which makes a huge bubble, 50,000 LY across, for other civilizations to find. But if the next closest civilization is a perfect mirror of ours, on the other side of our Galaxy, then it would take ANOTHER 50,000 years for our FIRST broadcasts to reach them. If they were as advanced as we were, and they received those broadcasts and responded to what they thought was a 1900s version of Humanity (despite the fact that it would be year 102,018AD) we wouldn't be able to get a response for ANOTHER 100,000 years...

Do you see how this works?

Even in a perfect system, like Fermi postulates must exist, and where all evolutionary progress leads to human-like, exploratory species, the CHANCE to bump into another living civilization is insanely unlikely.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I would trust my investigative powers and instincts and SETI and Fermi than someone who concludes we've already had life on Mars. Yet, you conclude that SETI and Fermi has no smoking gun. It's a bit disingenuous of you to criticize my research and not your own.

Referring to a single article on the SETI website does not constitute "research"...

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it's already been posted, but just in case it hasn't....
The Fermi Paradox Is Not Fermi's, and It Is Not a Paradox
Some highlights......

Despite what you'll often read, the Nobel prizewinning nuclear physicist never suggested that aliens don't exist

I’d like to explain why the so-called Fermi paradox is mistaken, based on my deep-dive research on the topic, because this mistake has inhibited the search for E.T., which I think is worthwhile. It was cited by Sen. William Proxmire (D-WI) as a reason for killing NASA’s SETI program in 1981; the program was restarted at the urging of Carl Sagan, but was killed dead in 1993 by Senator Richard Bryan (D-NV). Since then, no searches in the U.S. have received government funds, even though thousands of new planets have been discovered orbiting stars other than our sun.

According to these eyewitnesses, they were chatting about a cartoon in The New Yorker showing cheerful aliens emerging from a flying saucer carrying trash cans stolen from the streets of New York City, and Fermi asked “Where is everybody?” Everyone realized he was referring to the fact that we haven’t seen any alien spaceships, and the conversation turned to the feasibility of interstellar travel. York seemed to have had the clearest memory, recalling of Fermi:

“... he went on to conclude that the reason that we hadn’t been visited might be that interstellar flight is impossible, or, if it is possible, always judged to be not worth the effort, or technological civilization doesn’t last long enough for it to happen.”

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If we take the rough consensus of there being something in the order of hundreds of billions of trillions of stars, or somewhere around 21-23 zeros

take two modest 1 in 10 chances, for particular requirements for complex life to exist around any particular star - there go two of your zeros already. You can get to zilch very quickly and easily this way. The more we learn about how finely tuned for life Earth is, the easier it gets.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If we take the rough consensus of there being something in the order of hundreds of billions of trillions of stars, or somewhere around 21-23 zeros

take two modest 1 in 10 chances, for particular requirements for complex life to exist around any particular star - there go two of your zeros already. You can get to zilch very quickly and easily this way. The more we learn about how finely tuned for life Earth is, the easier it gets.

There are at least 800 Octillion Stars in the known Universe...

*800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

 

[Revoltingest]

If we take the rough consensus of there being something in the order of hundreds of billions of trillions of stars, or somewhere around 21-23 zeros

take two modest 1 in 10 chances, for particular requirements for complex life to exist around any particular star - there go two of your zeros already. You can get to zilch very quickly and easily this way. The more we learn about how finely tuned for life Earth is, the easier it gets.

Just citing the fact that numbers are big doesn't cut it.
We simply don't have enuf info to calculate any probabilities.
Is life elsewhere likely or unlikely?
We all guess based upon what we'd like it to be.
So I say there are little green men (& women) all over the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Both you and Tom are only focusing on one part of this argument for some reason...
I'll address Methane's state, but I'm asking you to look at the location and spectrometry of microbial mats in relation to these outgassings of Methane. Do that first, and then tell me I'm just blowing gas. (See what I did there?)

Again, bacterial/microbial mats cannot exist without... ??
And if they existed, or are extant, one of their byproducts would have been... ??

For reference:

• https://spacescience.arc.nasa.gov/microbes/STEP/documents/STEP/Microbes@NASA Inside.pdf
  
• Microbial mat - Wikipedia
  
• Meteorite Yields Evidence of Primitive Life on Early Mars (1984-1996)
• NASA Scientist Sees Possible Mat of Martian Microbes (2004)
• Potential Signs of Ancient Life in Mars Rover Photos - Astrobiology Magazine (2012-2015)
  
• Silica deposits on Mars with features resembling hot spring biosignatures at El Tatio in Chile (2016)
  
• The Martian subsurface as a potential window into the origin of life (2017)

Uncanny Similarities to Earthen Samples

• An Unusual Inverted Saline Microbial Mat Community in an Interdune Sabkha in the Rub' al Khali (the Empty Quarter), United Arab Emirates (Similar substrates)
  
• Earliest signs of life on land preserved in ca. 3.5 Ga hot spring deposits (Similar Locations)
• Microbial characterization of a subzero, hypersaline methane seep in the Canadian High Arctic (Similar environments)

Now, Methane's states...
Titan's "water" cycle is Methane-based because of a combination of surface pressure and how cold it is. (-290 degrees F) Methane boils at -257. So it's mostly a liquid on Titan, as you referenced.

For those who don't know or who are wondering - yes. Those are oceans on Titan's surface; Oceans of Methane. Titan has seasons, weather, lakes, streams, oceans, tides, rivers, waterfalls, and static sand dunes which sometimes lift themselves against the direction of the wind!

No one is claiming that Methane is not found in different states, and in different forms, throughout the Solar System. The state, form, amount, release patterns, locations, and timing on Mars, in conjunction with other surface studies mentioned above, are what should be intriguing.

The average temperature on Mars is -67 degrees F. (Into the mid +60s at the equator during the Summer.) So it's impossible for Methane to exist on Mars, in it's natural state, as anything other than a gas. These releases can't possibly come from frozen liquid methane that's evaporating as it warms in the Sun, for example, which does happen in some places on Titan. Even on the coldest day on Mars' poles, Methane is at least 100 degrees past it's boiling point. The Maritan releases must be trapped subsurface pockets (on Earth known primarily to come from biological decay) released during times when Mars subsurface ice layers are thinned by thaw, or a chemical or geological process unique to Mars' chemistry that we are currently unaware of. And I'm open to that possibility - so long as it can be substantiated and not just posited.

For a direct comparison of what I'm talking about:
The Mystery of Methane on Mars and Titan

I realize this is all "Too-long-didn't-read" for most people. But you've asked for an explanation of my positions, and it's certainly a little more distinct than "showing evidence of water", which, I might add, was also mocked when it was first suggested even though the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming. Today, as evidence has continued to pour in over time, everyone and their mother knows that Mars was once a very wet place, with lots of warmth, water, chemistry, and geology... I don't see those claims as being any different than mine that Mars' had a rich biological history.

Too long didn't read, at least not most of it.

Once again, methane on the Earth NOW is a sign of life. That has not always been the case. In the early Earth there would have been natural methane. Conditions were not the same then as now. Now we have massive amounts of molecular oxygen in the atmosphere and that does react with methane. That was not the case with primordial Earth.

You made an incorrect claim. It was corrected. deal with it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Just citing the fact that numbers are big doesn't cut it.
We simply don't have enuf info to calculate any probabilities.

Kinda we do now though..

we know that the vast majority of those stars are either multiple/ chaotic systems, too large or too small, too far from regions of required chemicals or in too dense/ radiation soaked regions to name a few

We are observing directly how unstable or tidally locked most orbits of exo-planets are which matches the modelling, one of the greatest hurdles is the possibly exceptionally rare occurrence of an inner rocky planet possessing a single massive stabilizing satellite like the moon, other inner rocky planets have no moons to speak of at all.

Then you have the requirement of correct atmosphere, a large enough rotating iron core to provide a radiation shied, land/sea ratio, these are just a handful

That's all before you even get to life appearing, life with human level intelligence far less civilization, - it only happened once among millions of species here.

22 zeros are not too hard to counter by compounding a fairly modest list of hurdles

Is life elsewhere likely or unlikely?
We all guess based upon what we'd like it to be.
So I say there are little green men (& women) all over the universe.

I think I'd prefer there was, it seems a little lonely otherwise! I'd also love to think I could live retired, healthy and wealthy for 50 years, the math doesn't agree though and that's our only objective measure

 

[Revoltingest]

Kinda we do now though..

Then ya gotta show your work, including all quantitative premises.

we know that the vast majority of those stars are either multiple/ chaotic systems, too large or too small, too far from regions of required chemicals or in too dense/ radiation soaked regions to name a few

I don't see numbers there.

We are observing directly how unstable or tidally locked most orbits of exo-planets are which matches the modelling, one of the greatest hurdles is the possibly exceptionally rare occurrence of an inner rocky planet possessing a single massive stabilizing satellite like the moon, other inner rocky planets have no moons to speak of at all.

Tidal locking doesn't prevent water based life in the temperate margins.

Then you have the requirement of correct atmosphere, a large enough rotating iron core to provide a radiation shied, land/sea ratio, these are just a handful

We don't even know how many possible atmospheric compositions could support life.

That's all before you even get to life appearing, life with human level intelligence far less civilization, - it only happened once among millions of species here.

Even if it happened multiple times, it's a inevitable that there'll be a first time.
So that disproves nothing.

22 zeros are not too hard to counter by compounding a fairly modest list of hurdles

Just counting zeroes is not calculating probability.

I think I'd prefer there was, it seems a little lonely otherwise! I'd also love to think I could live retired, healthy and wealthy for 50 years, the math doesn't agree though and that's our only objective measure

You haven't shown any math yet.
And remember that math is only a tool for modelling reality.
I require complete quantitative analysis for any such claim.

 

[james bond]

The point was that if life evolved on lots of planets, on the vast majority of them it wouldn’t progress very far. Only a small proportion would reach our level of intelligence or beyond.

I would think that is the basis, but what's shocking to me is they think the earth is mediocre. Thus, atheist scientists think there are better earths out there.

What are you basing those assumptions on? There’s no reason to assume any alien race, however advanced, would have the ability to actually cross however many thousands of light years to reach Earth. I also don’t see why you specific 4 billion years ahead of us when the difference in start of life and pace of evolution on different planets could be almost anything.

Technological breakthrough. 20% of speed of light. That's what Elon Musk is shooting for to get to Mars. Listen to him on how short it will be to travel globally in the near future. The Tesla Model S can out accelerate a Suzuki Hayabusa in the quarter-mile.

You’re still making a whole load of assumptions with zero evidence. Whatever the various conclusions we each come to here, none of us can avoid the cold, hard fact that we don’t know if there are aliens out there, just as we don’t know if there are gods.

I'm the one with the evidence -- Fermi paradox, SETI, Carl Sagan, Cornell U, my alma mater and Space-X. SETI found one transmission in all the time it has been monitoring, but it wasn't able to be found a second time. Thus, it could have been a mistake.

 

[james bond]

I think it's already been posted, but just in case it hasn't....
The Fermi Paradox Is Not Fermi's, and It Is Not a Paradox
Some highlights......

Too narrow for me. It just avoids the discussion completely.