It's a prediction of what is fact, because we do not yet have adequate means to find the answer. When you only have one result, believing you will get a similar result is literally what logical thinking is. You are the one being illogical when you fail to establish a difference between the conditions on Earth and how they are different from those on ALL of the other planets in existence. Without an established difference you are implying that different results spring from the same conditions, which is retarded.
Quote from: eggsalad on October 12, 2015, 06:31:41 PMIt's a prediction of what is fact, because we do not yet have adequate means to find the answer. When you only have one result, believing you will get a similar result is literally what logical thinking is. You are the one being illogical when you fail to establish a difference between the conditions on Earth and how they are different from those on ALL of the other planets in existence. Without an established difference you are implying that different results spring from the same conditions, which is retarded.The fact that there is no life on the planets we've been able to observe thus far, especially Mars, is a pretty big fucking difference.
Are you intentionally being retarded like when you said that Hayden Christianson didn't act horribly?How does a 1/9 celestial bodies in our solar system look like good prospects for your position?
The fact that there is no life on the planets we've been able to observe thus far, especially Mars, is a pretty big fucking difference.It doesn't matter if the planet looks like it could preserve life--IS IT preserving life?If not, then there's your difference.One planet has life. One planet does not.
Many of them very well could be they are simply out of reasonable observable distance. They could harbor life from microbes all the way up to the equivalent of the 1800's and we couldn't tell the difference.
State the difference between the composition of Earth and the composition of all other planets that let Earth give rise to life while others do not.
Quote from: Azumarill on October 12, 2015, 04:58:09 PMQuote from: Verbatim on October 12, 2015, 04:13:03 PMNonexistent, as far as I'd logically be able to guess.how do you figure?I haven't seen an alien, and there's no real evidence that they exist, so it would be silly to assume that they do just because "muh expanding univese". In the same way that it would be silly to assume that there's a god or something.There's philosophical quandaries such as the Fermi paradox, as well, that I've yet to see an adequate solution for.
Quote from: Verbatim on October 12, 2015, 04:13:03 PMNonexistent, as far as I'd logically be able to guess.how do you figure?
Nonexistent, as far as I'd logically be able to guess.
My problem with that thinking is that we have 1 confirmed planet with life out of 8/9. That's hardly a sufficient sample size.It's like asking 9 friends who they're voting for, and 8 of them say Jeb Bush, and then taking that information and assuming that Jeb will have a landslide victory against Hillary Clinton. A good sample size tells us that it's clearly not the case.
The composition of the planet doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is whether or not it has life on it. Just because something looks like Earth doesn't mean it is guaranteed to harbor life.Hurr durr you're being retarded for the sake of argument.And make your point all in one fucking post, for god's sake.
http://i.imgur.com/HxLOXMy.png stop being a hypocrite
Yes it does matter. Planet A and Planet B are identical and undergo identical influences, they will share identical results, that is basic and fundamental logic.
Quote from: Kupo on October 12, 2015, 06:52:14 PMMy problem with that thinking is that we have 1 confirmed planet with life out of 8/9. That's hardly a sufficient sample size.It's like asking 9 friends who they're voting for, and 8 of them say Jeb Bush, and then taking that information and assuming that Jeb will have a landslide victory against Hillary Clinton. A good sample size tells us that it's clearly not the case.The universe has been around for over 13 billion years.If there's aliens, I'd think they'd have found us first.
Aliens don't need to be hyper advanced to exist. It's entirely possible that there is simply too much distance and not enough means to cover it for them to meet us.
Quote from: eggsalad on October 12, 2015, 06:56:51 PMAliens don't need to be hyper advanced to exist. It's entirely possible that there is simply too much distance and not enough means to cover it for them to meet us.Clearly, you don't understand how long 13 billion years is.
Quote from: Verbatim on October 12, 2015, 06:58:18 PMQuote from: eggsalad on October 12, 2015, 06:56:51 PMAliens don't need to be hyper advanced to exist. It's entirely possible that there is simply too much distance and not enough means to cover it for them to meet us.Clearly, you don't understand how long 13 billion years is.No.I don't think you understand how distant celestial bodies are.
No, they will not share identical results. They're still two completely different fucking planets, genius.
It's two huge logical jumps to assume that 1) aliens would be more advanced than us, and 2) that traveling long distances of space, such as with light speed or another means, is even possible. Among others.
Quote from: eggsalad on October 12, 2015, 06:59:09 PMQuote from: Verbatim on October 12, 2015, 06:58:18 PMQuote from: eggsalad on October 12, 2015, 06:56:51 PMAliens don't need to be hyper advanced to exist. It's entirely possible that there is simply too much distance and not enough means to cover it for them to meet us.Clearly, you don't understand how long 13 billion years is.No.I don't think you understand how distant celestial bodies are.13,000,000,000 years.That's 156,000,000,000 months.The existence of aliens isn't looking so good, if you ask me.
Quote from: Kupo on October 12, 2015, 07:01:16 PMIt's two huge logical jumps to assume that 1) aliens would be more advanced than us, and 2) that traveling long distances of space, such as with light speed or another means, is even possible. Among others.I don't think so.
Quote from: Verbatim on October 12, 2015, 07:02:40 PMQuote from: Kupo on October 12, 2015, 07:01:16 PMIt's two huge logical jumps to assume that 1) aliens would be more advanced than us, and 2) that traveling long distances of space, such as with light speed or another means, is even possible. Among others.I don't think so.Provide reason or your idea is trash.
There's no reason to assert that if they existed they would choose to visit us even, they could very easily just choose to ignore us. What you are positing has zero basis and zero significance. Even if they could travel at light speed, it would take a tremendous amount of time to reach us.
Quote from: eggsalad on October 12, 2015, 07:06:44 PMQuote from: Verbatim on October 12, 2015, 07:02:40 PMQuote from: Kupo on October 12, 2015, 07:01:16 PMIt's two huge logical jumps to assume that 1) aliens would be more advanced than us, and 2) that traveling long distances of space, such as with light speed or another means, is even possible. Among others.I don't think so.Provide reason or your idea is trash.Your inability to understand the difference between 13 billion and 200,000 is showing.
Quote from: eggsalad on October 12, 2015, 07:06:02 PMThere's no reason to assert that if they existed they would choose to visit us even, they could very easily just choose to ignore us. What you are positing has zero basis and zero significance. Even if they could travel at light speed, it would take a tremendous amount of time to reach us.13 billion years is a little more than a tremendous amount of time, bucko.Nothing you're saying is convincing me that aliens exist, and you never will. Go cry now. I'm getting bored of this.
You have no reason to assume they would've been around that long or that we aren't the first to reach this evolutionary stage.
How rare do you think intelligent life is in space?
