No ET! Ever?

[Anomalocaris]

Just realised something.?

The original Start Trek signals  would just st be reaching those 7 planets with possible life...
They decode them, see that we have starship "wessels" that go faster than light, with a smörgåsbord of hitech weaponry.
They are all shitting their pants right now!  They just pulled the plug on all their seti dishes and are praying we don't receive them one day!

Or they are laughing uproariously at the styrofoam props and painted on phaser beams, and thinking about how easy it would be to disintegrate all the earth men and inseminate all the earth women when they get here.

[ignoramus]

They're also in awe as to how we managed to make our weapons release nice sounds in space!
A clever feat indeed!

[residentatheist]

'There is only one advanced technological civilisation in this galaxy and there has only ever been one - and that's us. We are unique.

Presenter makes bold claim during BBC documentary. He says the spark of life on earth billions of years ago was a fluke
'We still struggle to understand what happened. It's incredibly unusual' 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...nique.html

I must admit, I was surprised to read this from Brian Cox...
What do you think? Can you get your mind around the concept that we are alone? And always have and always will be?

I can hear the theists saying: I told you we're special, you just don't listen...

I found his article by Brian Cox interesting but I also see the conclusions he jumps to. First of all he seems to be basing his comments on the Big Bang Theory. If the universe is limited to a time and space restriction he may or may not be correct. It is clear that complex life forms such as humans (Industrial life forms) are rare. Look how long our planet was here before we evolved into what we are today. Billions of years.

However if the universe is infinite and eternal as I am sure it is. There are not only other Industrial life forms like us but there are an infinite number of them. In fact a blanket universe would produce an infinite number of every life form on our planet and every life form that has ever existed or will exist. Life is simply a natural byproduct of the natural universe.

RA

[Gawdzilla Sama]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...nique.html

I must admit, I was surprised to read this from Brian Cox...
What do you think? Can you get your mind around the concept that we are alone? And always have and always will be?

I can hear the theists saying: I told you we're special, you just don't listen...

I found his article by Brian Cox interesting but I also see the conclusions he jumps to. First of all he seems to be basing his comments on the Big Bang Theory. If the universe is limited to a time and space restriction he may or may not be correct. It is clear that complex life forms such as humans (Industrial life forms) are rare. Look how long our planet was here before we evolved into what we are today. Billions of years.

However if the universe is infinite and eternal as I am sure it is. There are not only other Industrial life forms like us but there are an infinite number of them. In fact a blanket universe would produce an infinite number of every life form on our planet and every life form that has ever existed or will exist. Life is simply a natural byproduct of the natural universe.

RA

Bolded two assumptions made from insufficient evidence.

[residentatheist]

I guess you missed the evidence I pointed out for the first one: Look how long our planet was here before we evolved into what we are today. Billions of years. (If this isn't evidence of rarity what is?)

As for the second it is a bit more complicated: Just because you don't understand the evidence doesn't mean it is lacking.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I guess you missed the evidence I pointed out for the first one: Look how long our planet was here before we evolved into what we are today. Billions of years. (If this isn't evidence of rarity what is?)

As for the second it is a bit more complicated: Just because you don't understand the evidence doesn't mean it is lacking.

I missed nothing.

[residentatheist]

OK, if you say so.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

OK, if you say so.

If you can put some hair on those bald assertions you'd be famous as the only person who KNOWS that stuff.

[residentatheist]

OK, if you say so.

If you can put some hair on those bald assertions you'd be famous as the only person who KNOWS that stuff.

Maybe I am.  How would you know? You didn't ask.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I guess you missed the evidence I pointed out for the first one: Look how long our planet was here before we evolved into what we are today. Billions of years. (If this isn't evidence of rarity what is?)

That is reasoning, not evidence itself. It relies on too small a sample-size. Finally, it ignores the random nature of mutations. Even if reasoning were indeed evidence, this line of reasoning still would be very unconvincing.

As for the second it is a bit more complicated: Just because you don't understand the evidence doesn't mean it is lacking.

If it's anything like the "evidence" you presented to quash the first objection, it's no wonder you preferred going with a personal attack rather than simply presenting it.