The fact is, I have NEVER seen an alien.
...
I do understand that life is common in the Universe.
LOL! You've never seen an alien, and yet you say life is common in the universe! So, how many alien civilisations or colonies have we discovered to uphold this notion that life is
common in the universe? The answer is zero! SETI has come up with zilch after years of searching. You don't
know whether life is common in the universe. That's a
belief that some people have, yet you treat it as fact.
The fact is, I have never seen unidentified flying objects that I thought were aliens.
Other people, however, have had experiences with crafts and/or beings that they thought, or were led to believe, were from another planet.
I do understand the implications of the Drake Equation.
I'm not sure that you do. In another comment somewhere I showed how statistical probability calculations show that life evolving anywhere from non-living chemicals has a probability so stupendously low that it is regarded as zero, and not even the Drake Equation can move that probability figure far enough away from zero to get anywhere near the tiniest plausibility figure, so it remains zero.
I do understand that it would take significantly higher levels of technology to cross those vast distances.
Besides technology, there are other barriers to travelling those vast distances. Travel time is one of them, requiring travel time well beyond the life time of the travellers. Cosmic radiation is another, slowly destroying the genome of the travellers, as well as slowly destroying the materials that the ship is made of. Given enough time, oxygen and water and other supplies will eventually leach out of storage tanks. Stored foods will eventually spoil. If a hydroponic food system is operated on board, its pumps and hoses and other fittings will eventually fail. And so on and so forth...
I believe there can be species that have developed higher levels of technology, that might have a means unknown to humans to reach destinations at such vast distances.
At least you acknowledge it as a
belief, but it is not rooted in science. Scientists understand enough of the cosmos to know of the energy requirements for hyper-fast space travel, and the problems of avoiding collisions with even tiny dust particles at those speeds.
Any description of aliens is entirely speculative.
Because, we have no reality of facts on the subject.
Therefore, might, assume and guess are the only things we can do.
We have no evidence to make an exact measurement.
And yet you speak about these aliens being common around the universe, and definitely having superior technology. In one breath you say "why would they need lights on their craft, and why would they need to abduct humans when they can analyse them remotely with the technology on their craft" and in the next breath you say those same aliens with their amazing technology would have trouble detecting Earth's radio signals, or remotely analysing Earth for it's size, orbit, and mineral resources.
There are scientific constants that are measurable with repeatable results. Light travels at a certain speed, isotopes decay at a certain rate.
You are behind the times a bit. Analysis of light speed measurements over the years has shown that the speed of light has changed. Similarly, there is evidence that suggests radioactive decay has not always proceeded at the same pace and that certain factors influence the rate of decay.
If the Earth and the Unverse were merely 6,000 years old, there would be an abundance of facts supporting that.
And there is! You just won't hear it from your friendly neighbourhood evolutionist scientist. From creationist scientists I have learned that there are numerous "clocks" in nature which show the universe cannot be billions of years old, and that the Earth is much less than a million years old.
Its funny how I have no problem letting others believe what they want, despite the evidence to the contrary but others can't seem to allow me to have scientific knowldege.
Actually, you come across as one who sneers at someone like me for having my beliefs in God and a young universe, and that you alone have a solid grasp on true science. But as I have already shown with some examples in this post, you are a bit behind in your knowledge of science. Also, you assert that aliens exist, despite the fact that you have never seen one. And you make other assertions about aliens without the slightest evidence to back up those assertions. So you are not talking from a
science (knowledge) position, but from a
faith (belief) position. My faith position, at least, is rooted in real substantiated history, and supported by scientific observation.
Reality is measurable and yeilds the same results no matter who tests it. The technology that allows us to communicate is based on reality, not belief. The composition of a rock is reality, not belief. The composition and characteristics of light is reality, not belief. Nanotechnology is reality, not belief. Quantum states are reality, not belief.
Reality is reality because there is evidence that can be measured and tested.
Many of these scientific "realities" are
interpretations of the data. The humans making these interpretations do so within a framework of their beliefs and presuppositions, which affects how they will interpret the data. These humans are fallible and can be wrong. Science has had to scrap previously established "facts" when new evidence and new interpretations showed them to be wrong. So it's important to note the distinction between the reality that is, and the reality as we believe it is.
Where is the evidence of aliens? A few blurry photographs? Testimony from other people.
People lie, misinterpet and fantasize.
Indeed they do. Evolutionists, for instance, have been caught numerous times in hoaxes and falsifying of data to "prove" evolution. Yet you have unshakeable trust in these "scientists".
Evidence and measurement do not.
The results must still be interpreted, so it's not quite as objective as you think it is.
Evolutionists and creationists, for instance, have the same data and the same measurements, yet come up with completely different explanations for them. That is due to their different paradigms or starting suppositions. We are all biased in one way or another. The question is which bias is the best bias to be biased with.
Edited by
Busmannz
on Thu 02/08/18 02:48 PM