Is anything there as Aliens?
Debate Rounds (3)
For this reason, I accept your challenge, and negate the resolution,
RESOLVED: Is there anything as Aliens?
(1)THE DRAKE EQUATION
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
"p = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
"T67; = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
"c = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
Radio astronomer Frank Drake developed the Drake equation so he could estimate the number of planets harboring intelligent life in the galaxy by taking into consideration the factors listed above. A rigorous estimate using the Drake Equation was implemented in 2001, which also took into consideration the number of planets that are in the habitable zone (The habitable zone is an area around a star were water is in liquid form, temperature is ideal, and photosynthesis is possible). The results found that hundreds of thousands of life-bearing planets statistically should exist. It also suggested that a habitable planet like the Earth should exist just a few hundred light years away.
I find it unfair if I did not now also give equal mention to the Fermi paradox. The Fermi paradox states that if so many planets exist with intelligent life why is there a lack of contact between the intelligent life and us and why is there such a lack of physical evidence of said intelligent life. The paradox exists in that the Drake equation statistically proves life should be abundant and yet physical evidence says otherwise. It is hard to combat the arguments from the Fermi paradox except that some physical evidence does exist as you can see from this writing.
And the second proof which interests me the most is:-
(2)UFO'S PAINTING IN HISTORICAL PAINTINGS
George Bernard Shaw once famously quipped, "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history". This quote is fitting to this piece of evidence that suggests the UFO phenomenon has been around as long as human civilization has existed and yet it is consistently dismissed. Today many UFO sightings are often explained away as being the US military testing some new technological weapon or plane, but this explanation cannot be used in a time when human flight was impossible.
The painting above is titled "The Madonna with Saint Giovannino" and dates back to around the 15th century. The painting depicts the Virgin Mary in the foreground, and in the background is what appears to be a man looking up in awe at an object that is strikingly similar to our modern day perception of a UFO.
This is not the only example of UFOs in ancient art. There are literally hundreds of examples of objects in the sky in many paintings spanning across the centuries. Strangely, the majority of the paintings depict UFOS in connection with a spiritual figure or experience. This could be how the people of the period interpreted the things they were seeing or perhaps there is a literal connection between the spiritual and UFOs.
Erich von D"niken, author of the famous and controversial Chariots of The Gods, suggests that our gods and angles maybe intelligent aliens. In the Old Testament, The Book of Ezekiel discusses an encounter with a strange flying object made of metal that took the shape of a wheel. Inside were four living creatures that looked like humans. Many people believe the Bible to be the literal word of God; it should be especially hard for those people to ignore this evidence. It is the Gospel after all.
Many may have a hard time taking the theories of D"niken seriously, but even respected astrophysicist Carl Sagan believed that we should seriously consider the possibility that extraterrestrial contact occurred in the past, so we should not completely dismiss this idea.
We should never forget that what we see in our real life, we only paint that. And still now the whole universe has not been explored totally. So it is perfectly possible that somewhere or the other place Aliens exist.
Con's argument please.
C1:"THE DRAKE EQUATION"
Using my opponents own Drake Equation, we can estimate that there are 1 billion Earth-like planets and 100,000 intelligent civilizations in our galaxy. SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is an organization dedicated to listening for signals from other intelligent life. If Frank Drake is right that there are 100,000 or more intelligent civilizations in our galaxy, and even a fraction of them are sending out radio waves or laser beams or other modes of attempting to contact others, shouldn"t SETI"s satellite array pick up all kinds of signals? (1) But it never has. What I urge my opponents, and judges to notice, is to look at the math, which says there should be so many thousands (or millions) of higher civilizations, that at least one of them would be an exception to the rule. Even if a theory held for 99.99% of higher civilizations, the other .01% would behave differently and we"d become aware of their existence. Not only this, but as site (1) explains, if Drake's Equation is true, than their should be thousands of civilizations of intelligent life flooding our galaxy, some formed after us, and some before. Because these "aliens" should be defined as "intelligent life," we must also assume that they would have technological advances similar (if not more advanced) than breakthroughs here on earth.It gets stranger. Our sun is relatively young in the lifespan of the universe. There are far older stars with far older Earth-like planets, which should in theory mean civilizations far more advanced than our own. Now I'm no genius, so lets go to source (1) again to further our evaluation.
"As an example, let"s compare our 4.54 billion-year-old Earth to a hypothetical 8 billion-year-old Planet X.
If Planet X has a similar story to Earth, let"s look at where their civilization would be today (using the orange timespan as a reference to show how huge the green timespan is):
Planet X vs Earth
The technology and knowledge of a civilization only 1,000 years ahead of us could be as shocking to us as our world would be to a medieval person. A civilization 1 million years ahead of us might be as incomprehensible to us as human culture is to chimpanzees. And Planet X is 3.4 billion years ahead of us"
There"s something called The Kardashev Scale, which helps us group intelligent civilizations into three broad categories by the amount of energy they use:
A Type I Civilization has the ability to use all of the energy on their planet. We"re not quite a Type I Civilization, but we"re close (Carl Sagan created a formula for this scale which puts us at a Type 0.7 Civilization).
A Type II Civilization can harness all of the energy of their host star. Our feeble Type I brains can hardly imagine how someone would do this, but we"ve tried our best, imagining things like a Dyson Sphere.
A Type III Civilization blows the other two away, accessing power comparable to that of the entire Milky Way galaxy.
If this level of advancement sounds hard to believe, remember Planet X above and their 3.4 billion years of further development. If a civilization on Planet X were similar to ours and were able to survive all the way to Type III level, the natural thought is that they"d probably have mastered inter-stellar travel by now, possibly even colonizing the entire galaxy.
One hypothesis as to how galactic colonization could happen is by creating machinery that can travel to other planets, spend 500 years or so self-replicating using the raw materials on their new planet, and then send two replicas off to do the same thing. Even without traveling anywhere near the speed of light, this process would colonize the whole galaxy in 3.75 million years, a relative blink of an eye when talking in the scale of billions of years:
Continuing to speculate, if 1% of intelligent life survives long enough to become a potentially galaxy-colonizing Type III Civilization, our calculations above suggest that there should be at least 1,000 Type III Civilizations in our galaxy alone"and given the power of such a civilization, their presence would likely be pretty noticeable. And yet, we see nothing, hear nothing, and we"re visited by no one.
So where is everybody?"
This entire paradox relies on the idea that your "equation" is true. Although (2) proves otherwise, but I thought I would entertain the judges to your "equation," acting as if it wasn't solely a bunch of estimates and guesses.
C2: "UFO'S PAINTING IN HISTORICAL PAINTINGS"
Am I incorrect when assuming that the majority of these paintings with "UFOs" are pertaining to the Christian religion? Is it not also true that Christians believe in a God in the heavens (or the "sky")..? And lastly, is this not where these "UFOs" appear? Furthered by (3). However, let's assume that these are "UFOs." This entire contention humors me because nothing, not even a theory is proven. As you said, in 1400, we didn't have a clue what a flying object would look like. So I ask you, how would they know of UFOs, regardless? Yet another sign that shows this is most likely simply God emerging from the clouds. A painting in the 1400s does not prove ANY theory. If anything, this painting gave us a final object to call a "UFO," to give us something that we can finally fantasize about, put in our movies, etc. In 1400s, they had not the slightest idea of what we would call an "alien," or a "UFO," showing either a) this is in fact god emerging from a cloud, or b) this is simply art, and 600 years later, we enjoy the idea of objectifying our own alien starships after a painting in the 1400s. Regardless of the outcome, neither of these things prove existence, nor even a theory of aliens existing.
Not enough characters remain for me to post all of my contentions, however I will post some links for judges and my opponents to view and entertain themselves with. (4) (5) (6) (7)
Sorry for the inconvenience about the two videos.
Somewhere or the other, I also want you all to take a look at my next point which I want to introduce for Con:-
Now I will be waiting for Con's argument.
The great and wise philosopher, Ellen DeGeneres once said: "The only thing that scares me more than space aliens is the idea that there aren't any space aliens." Now you see, Ellen and my opponent are very similar in this way, because as we can see, the pro fears the idea that aliens don't exist, showing how he must in fact deny this truth, and attempt to prove a theory using shoddy evidence, weak arguments, and not the most credible sources.
My opponent refuses/fails to uphold an argument in round 3, and rather attempts to give me links to biased websites with photoshopped pictures, and make up stories. My opponent attempts to prove a theory with another theory, attempts to prove the impossible using speculations, and attempts to prove aliens from paintings in early 1400s. Judges, to vote for a side with these mannerisms, would simply be negligent.
-Pro leaves Fermi's paradox untouched, agrees Drake's equation can be proved untrue.
-Pro lacks substantial evidence for his "UFO" contention. After failing to properly understand my own rebuttal, he brought up more evidence, from incredibly credible sites, such as http://www.paranormalhaze.com...(...).
-Con has refuted all points provided in this debate
-Pro has left points untouched
-Aliens aren't real ;)
For all these reasons, vote con. Thank you.
Thank you, pro, for the civilized debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro kind of just caved after the initial rebuttals.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.