Posted on 06/27/2017 6:56:54 PM PDT by plain talk
The Fermi Paradox puts an upper limit on the number of technological civilizations in our galaxy that predate us. And possibly on nearby galaxies as well, as we can see more of Andromeda than of the Milky Way.
This puts limits on the Drake Equations, but only on the parts that predict technological civilizations. Until we look, we can’t rule out life around a sizable percentage of stars. We don’t even know if Mars, Jupiter, and Titan have or have had life. And we could, using only current technology, and mostly off-the-shelf components, populate anywhere in the Solar System that’s fit to live.
Interstellar is several orders of magnitude harder. Intergalactic poses several further challenges, unless we can safely tap into unlimited energy, or find shortcuts.
af_vet_1981 already answered this question on Post 42, but I'll just repeat it.
The Heavens declare the Glory of God, and the Firmament showeth His handiwork (Psalm 19).
When we look at the night skies, and try to consider that this was all created by one person - the Triune Godhead - we should be struck with awe and reverence. And to just to consider that the person who created this awesome and seemingly infinite Universe careth for us - for us worms - these thoughts should drive us to our knees and just shout praises to the Lord.
I maintain that there is one 'civilization' in this dimension (I'm excluding the Heavens where the Angels normally reside) - and this is us. Man - made in the image of God at the Creation. We fell when our first parents sinned in the Garden - and the entire Universe and Creation groaneth until the last man to be saved is saved and God brings in the new Heavens and new Earth - where all will be redeemed and returned to perfection.
“To believe in this stuff, one must eliminate God.”
I don’t follow that argument.
Right.
“The vast majority believe that we are not unique, singular and alone in this universe... And they also believe there was another shooter on the grassy knoll in Dallas on November 22nd, 1963. They are wrong on both points.”
That right.
The vast majority of people actually believe that they exist, but there is not a single person that can prove that they exist.
If none of use can even prove that we exist, how can we begin to prove that life exists on earth?
“To believe in this stuff, one must eliminate God.”
I don’t follow that argument.
I agree with you and don’t follow it either. Who are we to challenge God’s creations?
Look at the disease issues humans experienced just crossing continents. Now imagine all the exotic variants of space herpes that might exist in the universe.... No thanks.
What happened to all the robots the 420 billion civilizations left behind?
Planet Schrödinger and it’s a feline civilization.
Utter crap that depends upon the erroneous “disk accretion” theory of planet formation. Conditions for a life sustaining planet are vanishingly small. We may well be the only life, or at the very least, the only _sentient_ life in the entire infinite Universe. Which means we better damn well not blow it. No space alien “light beings” flying a ‘49 Packard hub cap are going to save us. w e a r e i t. Google “Electric Universe” and visit www.thunderbolts.info.
And here are the representatives of two of them.
“If we detect interstellar radio waves with a decodeable signal, I would conclude technological life...”
Lol.
Would you now?
We cannot even prove that we exist.
As for other civilizations existing, we will likely never have evidence of such and will never have proof, but it does not mean that other civilizations do not or have not existed in our universe, a parallel universe or a past universe.
Some people really get exercised over the thought that there might be life somewhere else other than Earth. They’d be burning heretics at the stake if they had the chance.
Sounds familiar.
Lol. That’s it.
Thanks.
Au contraire. The same math used to make the assertion above can be configured—with different presumptions regarding the values of certain factors—to show that the likelihood of "advanced life"—or any life, for that matter—arising anywhere in the universe—spontaneously, moreover—is essentially zero...
I think Enrico Fermi would be rolling over in his grave if he knew so many pseudo-scientific half-wits were using,his name in such a manner (The Fermi Paradox - ooh ooh), as if it’s anything more than off hand comments obvious to anyone who can do basic algebra.
“We cannot even prove that we exist.”
What does that mean?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.