The universe is in it's infancy with less than .1% of it's total life span having occurred

What's not smart about it? You don't get to make the claim that there's evidence of no life outside Earth and then not back it up after being pressed for said evidence

>There is an absence of evidence of cancer in my body.
>but that's not evidence for the absence of cancer
This isn't going to go anywhere unless you accept that "negative evidence" (ie. Evidence that shows something doesn't exist) doesn't exist.

>the Femi paradox seems to show that we are the only ones in our galactic cluster and possibly even observable universe
Oh Jesus.
Did you really miss the last Fermi thread?
We have no real data on the "why no aliens" question, it's all speculation.
The "paradox" isn't grounds for any conclusions, especially if you're trying to rule out the existence of other races in the entire universe.
Hell, assuming GR holds, most of the observable universe is so far away any alien ship trying to reach us wouldn't be able to because the expansion of space "outruns" the speed of light.

>He thinks the only way to find aliens is by meeting them face to face
We should be able to tell by their energy usage alone.

>Evidence tells us there's no life outside earth
lol, no.

But that's impossible to do. Do you niggers even philosophy of science? How can I ever provide evidence that some which never existed, that is something which by definition could never leave any evidence, never existed?

>This isn't going to go anywhere unless you accept that "negative evidence" (ie. Evidence that shows something doesn't exist) doesn't exist.
Even if I accept that evidence of absence doesn't exist, what good is your absence of evidence?

I said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, not that it is.

Oh, so you've got evidence of life outside of earth? Wow, I don't know how I missed that on the news.

>But that's impossible to do.
Then why would you make the claim that you have evidence?

What is the evidence?

>We should be able to tell by their energy usage alone.
???
Please help me on this one, I'm completely lost here.
Are you assuming, perhaps that any "truly" intelligent species should have used up all the energy in the universe by now?
Using the Kardashev Scale perhaps?
You know the one, the scale that measures a civilization's level of advancement by how overpopulated and/or energy inefficient they are?
Because both those ideas seem backwards.

>Oh, so you've got evidence of life outside of earth?
Nope, but you don't have evidence it doesn't exist.
How high are you?
Even the 420-chan astronomy and space board has more intelligent discourse.

>There is an absence of evidence of cancer in my body.
>but that's not evidence for the absence of cancer
You're right, that's not evidence for the absence of cancer you brainlet, how retarded is Veeky Forums these days that they've never heard of a test giving a false negative?

Okay this isn't going to go anywhere. So let me just dumb it down some more:
>You make claim
>You prove claim
>No proof implies claim is false
That's the way it is.

>You make claim
>You prove claim
>No proof implies claim is false
Are you saying the Riemann hypothesis is false because there's no proof?

yes

You don't know what the Fermi paradox is. Natural selection and population expansion would mean that if intelligent life existed it should have colonized nearly every star by now.

Good to know, I'll tell all the number theorists to stop working on it

>Natural selection and population expansion would mean that if intelligent life existed it should have colonized nearly every star by now.
We haven't done it, so what forces intelligent life on another planet to have done it?

>So let me just dumb it down some more:
Oh, it's plenty dumb enough already.

>>You make claim
>>You prove claim
>>No proof implies claim is false
No, it doesn't.
We couldn't prove exoplanets existed thirty years ago.

OP this website is 18+, please finish high school before shitposting

>Natural selection and population expansion would mean that if intelligent life existed it should have colonized nearly every star by now.
Nope.
Most of the stars in the galaxy are red dwarfs.
Most of the rocky exoplanets we've discovered are superterran, and probably have gravity much higher than Earth's.
Any number of star-empires might exist, but if none of the m are comfy living here, they wouldn't have colonized Earth.
Or maybe we're a "nature preserve".
Or maybe several star empires are too busy fighting each other to colonize every last planet.
Or maybe our star-fairing neighbors are more responsible than locusts.
Or a thousand other possible reasons.

Mathematics isn't science dumbass. They work on different philosophies. In science we care about evidence, if you make claim it has to be backed up with evidence. If you can't do that then your claim is assumed to be false. This is literally the most basic philosophy of science, how the fuck do you retards not no this? How about this:
>Theorist makes theoretical prediction
>experimenters can't find evidence for prediction
>"Hurr durr absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"
This is how science works, if you can't back up your claim with evidence, your claim is assumed to be false. Don't like it? Fuck off.

>if you make claim it has to be backed up with evidence.
OK, let's say everybody stops claiming aliens _might_ exist?
Now what?
Do they suddenly exist because there's no burden of proof anymore?

>he still thinks you need to colonize planets like a fucking video game

>In science we care about evidence, if you make claim it has to be backed up with evidence
Yes! I'm glad you get it now! We're getting somewhere finally

Now where's the evidence of no life outside of Earth?

Oh wait, you don't have evidence, so the claim that there's no life outside of Earth must be false

Let's ignore intelligent life for a moment. Considering the scale of the universe and just how much planets there is, simpler life shouldn't extremely rare. Unfortunately alien rats don't really build dyson spheres so we have no way to notice them.
Obviously this is all speculation, we don't have enough data to come into any conclusion at all.

t. brainlet trying to sound smart

Because we have only had rockets for a few decades. Even with modern technology we could technically colonize our solar system.
You don't need earth like planets to colonize a star. Stop reading bad Sci fi.

>>he still thinks you need to colonize planets like a fucking video game
Which video game?
What are you even talking about?
Please help us understand!

>How does it feel to know that humans are going to become "The old ones"
lol like a planet of brainlets will ever go beyond their own solar system

>Because we have only had rockets for a few decades. Even with modern technology we could technically colonize our solar system.
Exactly, and we still haven't colonized,which is why your claim that
>Natural selection and population expansion would mean that if intelligent life existed it should have colonized nearly every star by now.
is patently false.

I honestly have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say.
>Now where's the evidence of no life outside of Earth?
Am I being trolled? Or are you retarded. I've explained three times now why you can't deal with proving something doesn't exist. Again this is basic stuff.

You are an idiot. Do you honestly believe that a species that has had rocket technology for millions of years wouldn't want to colonize another part of space? We have had rockets for less than 100 years and yet we are already looking to colonize the moon and mars. It literally just takes one species to do it and the galaxy would be filled with them.

>You don't need earth like planets to colonize a star. Stop reading bad Sci fi.
OK, what's your point?
We DO have an Earth-like planet.
Are you suggesting that the ONLY kind of intelligent life the could possible exist MUST have built a space station orbiting the Sun?
What if there's a hundred such races in this Galaxy alone, but none of them have gotten here yet?
After all, WE haven't colonized every star in the galaxy yet,

>I've explained three times now why you can't deal with proving something doesn't exist.
So then you're concluding that there's no life outside of Earth because...?

>Do you honestly believe that a species that has had rocket technology for millions of years wouldn't want to colonize another part of space?
You are an idiot. Please point to any post where I implied that.

>We have had rockets for less than 100 years and yet we are already looking to colonize the moon and mars. It literally just takes one species to do it and the galaxy would be filled with them.
Do you not understand the possibility that perhaps this hasn't happened yet? Why are brainlets like this even on this board?

>I honestly have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say.
That's because you've been huffing to much paint.
You seem to think someone's inability to defend an assertion makes the assertion false.
You're mixing up cause and effect.
The moon exists.
If I did a really poor job of trying to prove it exists, that doesn't change the fact that it does exist.
See also:
>We couldn't prove exoplanets existed thirty years ago.
Does that imply exoplanets didn't exist back then?

>None of them have gotten here yet
You don't have to have physical contact with intelligence to notice they exist. At sub light speed travel even at the speeds we currently possess we could go from one end of the galaxy to another in only a few thousand years. If any intelligent life exists in our galaxy it would have colonized most of it relatively quickly.
So then you agree that there aren't any other intelligent species in the galaxy?

>So then you agree that there aren't any other intelligent species in the galaxy?
No. Again, please point to a post where I implied that.

Reading comprehension is seriously lacking on this board these days

>So then you're concluding that there's no life outside of Earth because...?
Because the there is no evidence in favor of the hypothesis.
If we're being really strict about this, and ignoring a priori knowledge, then:
>Hypothesis: Exoplanets exist
>Evidence: None
>Conclusion: Exoplanets probably don't exist
Then technology advances a bit
>Hypothesis: Exoplanets exist
>Evidence: Something from Kepler
>Conclusion: Exoplanets exist
Both conclusions are correct in given the available evidence.

If intelligent life exists in another part of the galaxy it almost certainly older than us. The chances of the 2 or more first intelligent life to evolve at the exact same time is near Zero. So either they are millions of years ahead in which case we should have seen them or behind in which case we could hardly call them intelligent.

>Hypothesis: moon exists
>Evidence: pointed my telescope the right way
>Conclusion: moon exists

>Hypothesis: moon doesn't exist
>Evidence: pointed my telescope the wrong way
>Conclusion: moon doesn't exist

>both conclusions are correct

The difference between aliens and exoplanets is that there is evidence that other intelligent life DOESN'T exist in our galaxy.

youtube.com/watch?v=86JAU3w9mB8
not only do you not need to settle planets, but settling planets would be actively detrimental, as living on one is just using it's surface, and not it's total volume for habitation
harvest worlds, build living space is the ideal

>At sub light speed travel even at the speeds we currently possess we could go from one end of the galaxy to another in only a few thousand years.
Nope.
Voyager is only moving at 38,610 mph, about 0.0000576c
Juno will use Jupiter's gravity to reach 90,000 mph, or 0.0001342c.

>If intelligent life exists in another part of the galaxy it almost certainly older than us. The chances of the 2 or more first intelligent life to evolve at the exact same time is near Zero.
Glad you finally understand by throwing in the 'almost certainly' and 'near'! Good work!

>Does this imply exoplanets didn't exist back then?
No, that's his point. A lack of evidence of the existence of exoplanets was not evidence of a lack of existent exoplanets.

>Improperly conducted experiment has the same weight as a properly conducted experiment.
Well it's clear now that I'm either being trolled or you're retarded. I seriously hope you're not actually going to work in science since you've got no idea how the system works.

>Both conclusions are correct
no

>The difference between aliens and exoplanets is that there is evidence that other intelligent life DOESN'T exist in our galaxy.
I mean this claim has been made a dozen times in this thread already, but no one has posted this alleged evidence.

Where is the evidence?

>Well it's clear now that I'm either being trolled or you're retarded
Or the third option, that you're retarded.

How was the
>Hypothesis: Exoplanets exist
>Evidence: None
>Conclusion: Exoplanets probably don't exist
conducted properly when it came to a false conclusion?

>Both conclusions are correct...given the available evidence.
Yes. That's how it is, you up date your views based on the best available evidence.

maybe rocket technology has limits

We looked at many different solar systems and found none and natural selection would indicate that if intelligent life existed and was able to build rocket ships it should have expanded to being extremely noticeable

>We looked at many different solar systems and found none and natural selection would indicate that if intelligent life existed and was able to build rocket ships it should have expanded to being extremely noticeable
Again, here we are on planet earth, with intelligent life, able to build rocket ships, and we haven't expanded to the point of being extremely noticeable

understand now?

That is because we have only had it for a few years. Unless every other species of intelligent life also just so happen to invent rockets at the same time we did then we are the only and first Rocket using species in the known universe.

This is under the assumption that is the max speed limit and even then it would take a few million years to colonize a galaxy but far less to spread out to inhabit a huge portion of it.

It wasn't incorrect, it was correct as far as you would have been able to tell. Just like 70 years ago it would have been correct to think that protons and neutrons were fundamental. Science is a long history of being wrong, it doesn't change the fact that we need to draw conclusions from the available evidence.

>Unless every other species of intelligent life also just so happen to invent rockets at the same time we did then we are the only and first Rocket using species in the known universe.
Africans don't have rockets, does that mean they're not intelligent life?

So either every intelligent species developed at the same time or we are the first. Unless you think every other intelligent species in the galaxy lived for millions of years and never created rocket technology. I don't think I would call that intelligent.

>So either every intelligent species developed at the same time or we are the first.
How do you still not get this?

Africans developed before every other humanoid, yet don't have rockets. There would be things other intelligent life develop that we don't develop, and things we develop that they don't develop.

pls

>Africans developed before every other humanoid
No they didn't. Modern day Africans aren't the same as the older ones.
Also as long as they develop logic, math or science they would develop rockets.

>Africans don't have rockets, does that mean they're not intelligent life?
The question answers itself

>How does it feel to know that humans are going to become "The old ones"
How do you know they haven't been old ones that have come and gone?

What makes you think we won't be snuffed out by a super nova, or that any intelligent life could every travel far enough from it home world to survive such an event?

>What makes you think we won't be snuffed out by a super nova
Unless a large enough star is teleported by old god extradimensional fuckery to within 50-60 LY of us we know because there aren't any super nova capable stars within the kill zone from earth.

>This is under the assumption that is the max speed limit
No, I'm addressing this:
>even at the speeds we currently possess we could go from one end of the galaxy to another in only a few thousand years

And at Voyager speeds, it would take well over 1.3 billion years to reach the farthest part of the galaxy.
But even that's misleading, since Voyager isn't carrying any means of decelerating.
Plus time to stop and build colonies along the way, etc.

Imagine being an alien archaeologist and finding all the really fucked up (kinky) porn aliens would stimulate their sexual reproductive organs to.

>he thinks voyager is the fastest thing we can make

Well yes, and if you have to speak from a purely empirical point of view then it's undeniably correct. Problem is it's also total bollocks. Even when the correct answer was no, everyone but the most strident autist expected that the ACTUAL answer was yes. That's one of the reasons they kept pushing for funding for new planetfinder tech. They were pretty damn sure they'd find something once it was technically possible to do so.

>>he thinks voyager is the fastest thing we can make
Dumbass:
>even at the speeds we currently possess
The Voyager probes ARE the ONLY extrasolar craft we've ever constructed.
As I point out here: >Juno will use Jupiter's gravity to reach 90,000 mph, or 0.0001342c.
Juno is faster, but only because it's falling towards Jupiter.
And I used the top speed for the Voyager probes, NOT their current speed.
New Horizons tops out at 36,000 mph.
The Helios probes do about 156,000 mph, but that's because they're orbiting the sun closer than Mercury.
And that's it. That's the fastest man-made object in history, 0.0002335c, but again, only because we dropped in to a very close solar orbit.

I'm sure _someday_ we'll make something faster, but you're talking out your ass when you say:
>even at the speeds we currently possess we could go from one end of the galaxy to another in only a few thousand years
The fastest we've ever sent anything outward is Voyager, and at that speed, it would take 73,000 years to reach the nearest star.

>Even when the correct answer was no,
Just splitting hairs here, but the correct answer was "we don't know", which is not the same as "no".

We really need to hurry up and search for life on Enceladus and Europa so the "hurr life only exists on Earth and nowhere else in the universe" brainlets can be objectively BTFO. If multiple worlds in our own system have life that would >imply the universe is teeming with life.

Have you ever heard of laser propelled solar sails, friendo?
or ion drives
or fusion torches

we do have a bunch of different drives that can surpass our probes, The solar sails in particular can pull off 20% to 40% of c before getting extreme fuel costs

we have indeed invented better, they're just sitting in the lab until we have the industrial ability to construct ships in space for use in space, these drives are ineffective in a gravity well and thus are no good for putting on a rocket

they didn't have guns or iron

>Have you ever heard of laser propelled solar sails, friendo?
Of course, dumbass. But AGAIN, I'm addressing this point:
>even at the speeds we currently possess

And while _I'm_ sure we can reach higher speeds , OP (you?) insists that a lack of evidence indicates a hypotheses is false, so clearly higher speeds are impossible, somehow.

>we do have a bunch of different drives that can surpass our probes,
We have some nifty ideas, but none qualify as speeds we "currently possess".

> they're just sitting in the lab
Well, ion drives are already in use on existing spacecraft (at speeds of up to 22,000 mph), but they aren't the fastest spacecraft out there..
And there is a thing called a "fusion torch", but it's not a spacecraft engine, it's internal to a reactor. Maybe you're thinking of NERVA? But that's only got a specific impulse about twice that of chemical engines.
We don't have any practical solar sails, and your numbers are completely hand-wavy there.

Even theoretical, "maybe someday" level stuff like Project Orion take decades to reach the nearest star (133 years for Orion) at speeds that
would still take millions of years to cross the galaxy (even without saving fuel for slowing down or steering). And of course, Orion uses atom bombs for fuel, so refueling on some distant planet could take years or decades at a pop.

None of this rules out some other race getting here faster, but you clearly can't claim we can cross the galaxy in thousands of years with current technology.

Though in some cases the absence of evidence can let you make an assumption about a likely the absence of something is. In a lot of cases it's hard to 100% prove the absence of anything

feels like ill still have to shit after i eat.

cool story.

Not really, there's good reason to expect, a priori, that other planets exist around other stars. Physics is like that. Biology in the other hand is much, much more stochastic. So there's no particular reason to think that life (let alone intelligent life) is common, and that's the issue, since we only have a sample size of 1 (the earth) you can't create any good prior estimation on the abundance of life, so we have to use only the available evidence. Doing anything else is religion.

Sure, but "we don't know" isn't the same thing as "no".
OP's not just claiming we don't know of any intelligent life anywhere else, he's claiming it doesn't exist.

>he's claiming it doesn't exist.
And the available evidence agrees with him.

>And the available evidence agrees with him.
No, the available evidence neither supports nor denies his assertion.
Again, "I don't know" doesn't mean the same thing as "no".

That's wrong, for the reasons already explained.

>In science we care about evidence, if you make claim it has to be backed up with evidence. If you can't do that then your claim is assumed to be false.

If you cant do that then your claim is assumed to be of unknown truth value.

If you have positive evidence that it is false, then it is assumed to be false.

Now dont get me wrong, I think there are very good reasons to think there is no intelligent life anywhere near us, but it is not proven to be false either.

universe teeming with life would look very different than this one, for one we would have certainly detected their signals by now or met them

our universe is not teeming with life, Star Trek is not real

You're dumb. The best chances of us finding life are slim, and most definitely won't be smart. Secondly, intelligence is an extremely rare characteristic. Imagine every life on earth and 99.9% are super dumb compared to humans and the next best still fall leagues short of our brain power. The point is of all life we know there's only one king

I was fascinated by the idea of extraterrestrial sentient life once. Nowdays I just stopped caring. Even if it does exist someplace out there, we're not going to meet them. Maybe a thousand generations later at best.

>mfw brainlets on Veeky Forums think the scientific method somehow(?) lets them conclude that there's no life outside Earth
i-im being trolled right?

>mfw brainlets on Veeky Forums think that you can't conclude something doesn't exist by the lack of evidence for it's existence.
>mfw these same brainlets would tell me that unicorns don't exist
>mfw I have no face for this retardation.

>mfw brainlets on Veeky Forums thinks we even have the ability to access a significant portion of the universe to do the kind of the experiment that would let us conclude there's no life outside Earth
t-this is bait right?

Bro, unicorns exist. You just haven't looked hard enough.

>mfw brainlets on Veeky Forums assume something exists because we haven't looked hard enough
y-you can't be serious