• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

have they found anything?

We are still assuming that ET is around our age, perhaps a little older or younger.
But what if ET is a billion years older? No matter where in the galaxy he may hail from, his technology would seem like magic to us, surely able to pick up our feeble attempts at sending out any signal. He could be watching re-runs of Hogan's Hero's right at this very second. This kind of ET would want to colonize the galaxy if it hasn't already done so.

The laws of physics exist. There are limits to what technology can do. If a civilization's technology reaches those limits, another billion years won't get it anywhere beyond them.

There is no reason to believe that there is a way for them to detect our signals at this point. Its like saying, "if ET is a billion years old, it should have mastered the Force and felt our presence by now."
There's no more reason to believe that the particular magic technology you're assuming is possible than that "the force" exists.
 
Isn't there an assumption that using the h-t-t-p://en(dot)wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line [hydrogen line frequency] might be a reasonable universal freq that an intelligent, radio-technology-using civilization might use? But yeah--it's another dimension to the astronomical haystack.

Can you answer my other question--is there anything in between broadcast (weak dispersed signals) and the high energy, narrow focus signals you're involved with? Like some medium strength signal that could be aimed at a larger section of the sky (but not omnidirectional)?

I wonder if there might not be a benefit to trying some kind of shotgun approach (rather than using either a hand grenade or a squirrel rifle, by analogy).
The "magic frequency" (21 cm/2*Pi)=3.36 cm I like better then 21 cm -- it is so called "Makovetsky Frequency", which is mentioned in
your URL.
 
No one will win this argument until we travel to another planet and discover whether life is possible there. If we find microbial life anywhere within our solar system, then the chances are good that the whole galaxy and others are teeming with life. The molecular building blocks of life are sitting out there in the cold, tenuous gas between the stars. The question is how many rocky planets in the Goldilocks area of a star and the star itself being of the right kind to harbour and make life flourish in the galaxy on such planets.
Even that could turn out to be unnecessary if life is found on a moon such as Titan for example where the sun provides no heat at all and is covered in ice. We have found bacteria in the Antarctica and in a volcano, so why not?
 
No one will win this argument until we travel to another planet and discover whether life is possible there.

What do you think you are arguing?

I for one have only been arguing that your understanding of evolution is wrong and your prediction of the likelihood of extra terrestrial civilizations is off.

The fact that the laws of physics limit technology, for instance, doesn't require waiting until we travel to another solar system to confirm.
 
No one will win this argument until we travel to another planet and discover whether life is possible there.
Not really. There's a logical argument, and your position isn't logical. (See again the numbered points that refute your argument based on Fermi's Paradox.)

And the position most of us hold is the one stated by Sagan--that we don't know because there isn't any evidence. So it actually acknowledges that we don't have the evidence.

At any rate, the results of traveling to another planet won't answer the broader questions anyway. There's no reason to think THAT planet would be typical either, whether it has no life, simple life, or complex life. Your position is the claim of knowledge about the galaxy based on the absence of evidence. My position (and I think that of most of us) is that your position is not supported. In this case, the absence of evidence does not provide evidence of absence.
 
But.. but.. the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, therefore aliens are real and I must worship them.
 
I'm only looking at the myriad of coincidences that produced intelligent life here as a guide besides reading that book Rare Earth which made me think of the odds. Were I a bookmaker I would be fabulously rich betting such odds.
 
This kind of ET would want to colonize the galaxy if it hasn't already done so.

No. A HUMAN BEING would want to do that. Who says that any sort of ETI would posses any of our human motivations? They could be vastly more intelligent than us, yet be satisfied with a society based on philosophy or art. Who says that all ETIs will do technology like us?

Again, I keep harping on this, stop thinking like a human...
 
I'm only looking at the myriad of coincidences that produced intelligent life here as a guide besides reading that book Rare Earth which made me think of the odds. Were I a bookmaker I would be fabulously rich betting such odds.


They only SEEM like coincidences (it's a post hoc ergo propter hoc of the highest magnitude)... Again, you are looking at it totally backwards (LIKE a creationist, hence why Joe keeps asking you if you have somehow become one).
 
Is that still around? Yeah I thought that was pretty cool too.

Yea, I got the Linux version of a copy and run it when my computer's on stand by, although I turn off my monitor & speakers at night so I don't get the screensaver effect. I run other software at night that doesn't require me at the helm so why the heck not, SETI can run too when there's a few extra bits of RAM laying about.

PS and FYI, I'm all for SETI. I just think it's pointless and does nothing for a "pro SETI" viewpoint to rip on someone because they dared to question it.
 
I'm only looking at the myriad of coincidences that produced intelligent life here as a guide besides reading that book Rare Earth which made me think of the odds. Were I a bookmaker I would be fabulously rich betting such odds.
The arguments in Rare Earth have been thoroughly debunked. On top of that, I've shown that they're primarily based on the ideas of an explicit Creationist.

That "myriad of coincidences" you speak of aren't necessarily required, as you keep claiming.

You're repeating the same old stuff that's already been well refuted on this thread.
 
That creationist was responsible for one chapter of that book only. The rest of it is food for thought.
 
That creationist was responsible for one chapter of that book only. The rest of it is food for thought.
Nonsense.

According to Ward and Brownlee, "Guillermo Gonzalez changed many of our views about planets and habitable zones." (From the preface.)

ETA: From a Salon interview with David Darling:
I contacted Peter Ward and asked how much Gonzalez influenced him in the writing of the book. He replied, "He's been a major influence about the importance of some features of the earth that are unique to Earth and that we believe are important in the rise of complex life." I then said to him, "Did you know that Gonzalez writes extensively as a Christian apologist, defending the view of intelligent design?" And he said, "No, I had no idea of this. Are you sure?" Then he wrote to Gonzalez and asked for an explanation and Gonzalez said he wasn't making any apologies for the fact that his religious beliefs affect his science and vice versa (Hansen, 2001).
Linky.



Also, the central methodology of the Rare Earth is a Creationist argument--you take every possible observation of anything that may have influence the Earth and treat it as a prerequisite to intelligent life on Earth and then say, "What are the odds against that?"

It's backward thinking. And the Rare Earth theory has been thoroughly debunked in all its particulars long since. The example I keep using is that R.E. says that a gas giant like Jupiter is needed to sweep up debris and reduce the number of catastrophic impacts with the Earth-like planet. I've shown that you could as easily argue just the opposite--that if we had such impacts that pushed the ecological reset button more frequently than ~every 50 million years, maybe intelligent life would have evolved sooner.

You can't assume that the Earth is ideal and perfect in every way.

And punctuated equilibrium argues that an environment that is ideal and perfect in every way isn't likely to spur rapid change anyway.

But we've gone through all this before on this thread.
 
Last edited:
We don't know that E.T.s are not colonists either, or that our Earth has not been colonized as we don't know what to look for or how far back. Colonists don't need to be smart either, they just have to jump planet to planet and somehow survive the journey. They've done that inside meteorites as microbes. Panspermia comes to mind.
 
All the elements that make up the earth and finally us are produced in giant stars that have gone supernovae spewing carbon and all the other matter that make a rocky planet possible. In between the stars are clouds of dust that contain all the elements that can produce life on a suitable planet where Darwinian evolution takes over once the inorganic material becomes organic. No one is arguing that this doesn't take place everywhere conditions are right. Intelligence? I may be wrong, and probably am, but it may be extremely rare regardless of what that idiot Gonzalez says. By intelligence, I mean a technology one not an animal type.
Was an apology ever published by the authors of Rare Earth for misleading their readers? After all, they are respected scientists both of them.
 
Intelligence? I may be wrong, and probably am, but it may be extremely rare regardless of what that idiot Gonzalez says. By intelligence, I mean a technology one not an animal type.

So, do you have some way to differentiate "animal" and "technological" intelligence since the last time you posted this?
 
So, do you have some way to differentiate "animal" and "technological" intelligence since the last time you posted this?

Yup--once again, amb's arguments rule out Earth as a site of intelligent civilization since absolutely ALL intelligence on this planet is, arguably, limited to the animal kingdom.
 
Was an apology ever published by the authors of Rare Earth for misleading their readers? After all, they are respected scientists both of them.
I have no idea, but at the very least I can say Ward & Brownlee are not respected scientists because of Rare Earth. If they're still respected scientists, it is despite the damage they've done to their reputations with Rare Earth.

For the record, Ward is a geologist and paleontologist and Brownlee is as an astronomer and astrobiologist (according to Wiki).
 
We don't know that E.T.s are not colonists either, or that our Earth has not been colonized as we don't know what to look for or how far back. Colonists don't need to be smart either, they just have to jump planet to planet and somehow survive the journey. They've done that inside meteorites as microbes. Panspermia comes to mind.

In that case, maybe we ARE the colonists. Thought that still leaves open the issue where life evolved originally.
 
For the record, Ward is a geologist and paleontologist and Brownlee is as an astronomer and astrobiologist
So at least Brownlee should know what he is talking about then?
 
In that case, maybe we ARE the colonists. Thought that still leaves open the issue where life evolved originally.

Perhaps it originates on each suitable planet given the right conditions.
Amino acids have been discovered in space along with other essential elements such as carbon which is available in abundance in nebula.
An asteroid/meteor could have easily transported these elements to the early Earth.
 
So, do you have some way to differentiate "animal" and "technological" intelligence since the last time you posted this?

Yea, OK a play on words. We are animals. Very intelligent animals I may add.
Some much more so than others.
 
Yea, OK a play on words. We are animals. Very intelligent animals I may add.

This is not a play on words.

You simply misspoke in your attempt to make humans something different in kind from all the other animals. (Again, this is a typical Creationist perspective.)
 
Yea, OK a play on words. We are animals. Very intelligent animals I may add.
Some much more so than others.

Yes, and an elephant is a very big animal. But we've been through all this already, I was just hoping you had something new to add.
 
I find it very frustrating you not been able to understand my point. Why bring up the animal example of life on Earth?
My whole argument rests on the case that intelligent technological civilizations may be rare in the galaxy, not animal life which may be in abundance in more places than we can imagine. The universe may be teeming with Microbial life, and in some suitable places, even complex animal life, It's homo sapiens like intelligence I'm arguing may be extremely rare, Earth like homo sapiens, get it?
 
My whole argument rests on the case that intelligent technological civilizations may be rare in the galaxy,

But what you've offered as the "case" for that assertion has failed. That's primarily what I've disagreed with--your backwards arguing about probabilities of something evolving, about how conditions have to be oh-so-friendly for complex life, and your argument that there hasn't been enough time (except, presumably, here on Earth, even though as I've pointed out, no more time has elapsed here than anywhere else), and the other Rare Earth arguments (that a large moon, a Mars like planet, a Jupiter-like planet, etc. are all prerequisites to complex life.)

Actually, as worded, nobody disagrees that intelligence "may be" rare. (Would you accept that it may not be rare?) And I've also pointed out that there's rare and then there's rare. (IIRC, you at one point said there were no other ETIs in our galaxy and probably no more than a dozen in the entire universe.)

I personally suspect humans will never encounter an ETI, and that there still may be hundreds or thousands of them in our galaxy alone spread apart in space and time.
 
Last edited:
I find it very frustrating you not been able to understand my point. Why bring up the animal example of life on Earth?
My whole argument rests on the case that intelligent technological civilizations may be rare in the galaxy, not animal life which may be in abundance in more places than we can imagine. The universe may be teeming with Microbial life, and in some suitable places, even complex animal life, It's homo sapiens like intelligence I'm arguing may be extremely rare, Earth like homo sapiens, get it?

And what I find increadibly frustrating is that you simply keep on asserting that this is true without actually addressing the arguments made against it.

Let me spell it out, again: there is no difference in kind between human intelligence and the intelligence of other animals on the earth. If it is possible for that kind of intelligence to evolve elsewhere, then it is possible for our kind of intelligence to evolve, because they are the same kind. The difference is one of degree.

Now, if you want to say, "no, it is a difference in kind." then go ahead and show it. Joe and I have both given examples of animal intelligence that is similar to human intelligence in many ways. Of course we are able to do some things with our intelligence that they are not: just like Micheal Jordan can do some things with his body that I can't, but those differences flow from a difference in the degree of intelligence.
Their brains have neurons. They work by the same principles. Ours are bigger and a little more complex, but there is nothing in evolutionary biology that makes the evolution of human-like intelligence from crow-like intelligence impossible.
In fact, given that it's happened once, it necessarily is possible. So we have to move to the question of whether or not it's probable, and how probable or improbable it is.

On that, I don't know, though I think the fact that lineages other than our own have evolved from less intelligence to more intelligence suggests that it isn't all that improbable. Nevertheless, I'm willing to admit to not having much to go on here. But as I've said before, neither do you. And if you claim to know, you'll need to do something to back that up.

And if you want to just say, again, "Human intelligence is very rare in the universe, though animal intelligence may not be", then you will have to give some sort of argument as to what it is that makes our intelligence particularly different from other animals, and what gives you confidence that it is particularly unlikely to evolve.
 
I'm basing my feelings if you like, to the fact that the universe could be up to 20 billion years old or as young as 12 billion years. If an intelligent civilization has evolved on the other side of the disc of our galaxy, say 20.000 light years away but a billion years before the Earth was even formed, this ET would have the whole galaxy at his mercy providing they didn't destroy themselves and are billions of years ahead of our feeble little civilization.
Who can guess the progress these beings would have made? they may have long ago shed their bodies of matter and become pure energy. In other words, were we to encounter such beings, we would probably think they are god. The matter of 20.000 light years distance to them would be as distance to the planet Mars is to us, perhaps even less. They may well be immortal, therefore, I ask as the title of a book from Surendra Verma asks: Why Aren't They Here?
 
this ET would have the whole galaxy at his mercy providing they didn't destroy themselves and are billions of years ahead of our feeble little civilization.
And that interstellar travel is practical and possible. And that they would actually want to do it, and...

You are making assumptions which may or may not be valid.

Who can guess the progress these beings would have made? they may have long ago shed their bodies of matter and become pure energy. In other words, were we to encounter such beings, we would probably think they are god.
But just because we would consider them godlike doesn't mean that they would be capable of anything that we think a god would be capable of.
Earlier, for instance, I made the point that there are some things which are simply physically impossible, there are limits to technology no matter how old a civilization may be. But of course you ignored that.

The matter of 20.000 light years distance to them would be as distance to the planet Mars is to us, perhaps even less.
Where did you get that idea from? And that particular number?
What does that sentence even mean?

They may well be immortal, therefore, I ask as the title of a book from Surendra Verma asks: Why Aren't They Here?
I don't know, but Joe has given you a great number of possibilities. If you think the only possibility is "they don't exist" then you're failing to really consider the issue. That's clearly a possibility, but it's not obvious that it's even the most likely one.
 
Last edited:
In that case, maybe we ARE the colonists. Thought that still leaves open the issue where life evolved originally.

Same goes for the Rhino virus. Still making folks miserable after all these eons...probably been making dinos miserable back in the day...

Kachoo
 
I'm basing my feelings if you like, to the fact that the universe could be up to 20 billion years old or as young as 12 billion years. If an intelligent civilization has evolved on the other side of the disc of our galaxy, say 20.000 light years away but a billion years before the Earth was even formed, this ET would have the whole galaxy at his mercy providing they didn't destroy themselves and are billions of years ahead of our feeble little civilization.
Who can guess the progress these beings would have made? they may have long ago shed their bodies of matter and become pure energy. In other words, were we to encounter such beings, we would probably think they are god. The matter of 20.000 light years distance to them would be as distance to the planet Mars is to us, perhaps even less. They may well be immortal, therefore, I ask as the title of a book from Surendra Verma asks: Why Aren't They Here?

Who is to say they are not here.

They can be in need of resources that we may not consider resources. They may consider (I know this will squick you out) us a kind of zoo specimen they are watching for their own amusement. Think on it, birds hop about oblivious to mankind all around. What if one of them is the size of a pea hiding in a rock or maybe in a star formation? We sure as heck are not going to see them.:boggled:
 
This kind of ET would want to colonize the galaxy if it hasn't already done so.

No. A HUMAN BEING would want to do that. Who says that any sort of ETI would posses any of our human motivations? They could be vastly more intelligent than us, yet be satisfied with a society based on philosophy or art. Who says that all ETIs will do technology like us?

Again, I keep harping on this, stop thinking like a human...

Are there any lifeforms on Earth that refuse to colonize a space they are capable of colonizing? I know of some that have apparent checks on their reproduction when resources are low, but I can't think of any that arbitrarily stop at some boundary they can cross.
 
Not really. There's a logical argument, and your position isn't logical. (See again the numbered points that refute your argument based on Fermi's Paradox.)

You do know it is called a "Paradox" because we refuse to believe that it is a simple and logical "Observation" don't you?

The arguments to explain away the "Paradox" amount to people who support a faith that has been proven invalid.
 
You do know it is called a "Paradox" because we refuse to believe that it is a simple and logical "Observation" don't you?

The arguments to explain away the "Paradox" amount to people who support a faith that has been proven invalid.

It's called a paradox because it's the observation of two apparently contradictory things: the expectation that intelligent life is common in the universe, and the fact that it hasn't arrived here yet.

There is necessarily an explanation that shows that these two things are not in fact contradictory. One is the one that amb is trumpeting: that the first "expectation" is wrong. The other class of explanations is that the second expectation: that if intelligent life is common it would have arrived here, is wrong.

There are many ways to go into both sides of that: for instance, amb has argued that complex life in general is rare, but he's also argued that animal life in general may be common, but intelligent life very rare. Those are two different explanations that focus on that side of the equation. Another is that while intelligent life may commonly arise it doesn't last long, and so at any point in time is rare.

The other class of explanations is of the sort that say, while intelligent life it common it simply hasn't arrived here. Of this sort are: interstellar travel is either too hard or impossible, civilizations at that level simply aren't interested in travelling to other stars, they do tend to do so, but just slower than we expect, or they have been here but simply haven't made contact. (there are others).

I expect that the real explanation is some combination of both sides of the equation.
 
I'm basing my feelings if you like, to the fact that the universe could be up to 20 billion years old or as young as 12 billion years. If an intelligent civilization has evolved on the other side of the disc of our galaxy, say 20.000 light years away but a billion years before the Earth was even formed, this ET would have the whole galaxy at his mercy providing they didn't destroy themselves and are billions of years ahead of our feeble little civilization.
Who can guess the progress these beings would have made? they may have long ago shed their bodies of matter and become pure energy. In other words, were we to encounter such beings, we would probably think they are god. The matter of 20.000 light years distance to them would be as distance to the planet Mars is to us, perhaps even less. They may well be immortal, therefore, I ask as the title of a book from Surendra Verma asks: Why Aren't They Here?

This is just a rephrasing of your Fermi's Paradox argument.

I refer you again to the numbered list I've given you months ago--any one of which is sufficient to refute this argument.

Before I quote them again here for you to continue ignoring them, I'll point out that at best all you're arguing for is that a billion year old intelligent civilization hasn't existed long enough to make evidence of their existence ubiquitous in the galaxy. You can't go from that to your position that there might not be dozens or hundreds or thousands of intelligent civilizations similar to our own spread out in space and time in our own galaxy.

___
1.) The galaxy could be full of civilizations exactly like ours, and we are undetectable to even our own technology not so far from here. At best you're only proving that much more advanced civilizations haven't existed for a long enough time to fill the galaxy with evidence of their existence. You've done nothing to address the possibility of the existence of civilizations on par with our own.
2.) The argument assumes a technology that is impossible by today's science. I'm not saying I know for sure FTL or near lightspeed transportation will never be achieved, but it's an especially weak argument that assumes that such a thing is certain.
3.) Even if this tech is possible, the argument assumes that all intelligent civilizations will necessarily achieve everything that is possible. It could be that civilizations don't last long enough to, or it could be that it's economically unfeasible even if they do or that they lack the motivation to do it.
4.) Why do you use the absence of probes as evidence that no other intelligence in the galaxy exists and not that no other intelligence in the entire universe exists? If we're assuming magic technology, then why not assume quick and easy intergalactic transportation?
5.) The probes would have to be absolutely ubiquitous for it to be impossible to have missed one. What if one passed through, checked out the Earth, and went on its way a mere 1 million years ago?

In this case, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If you raise Fermi's Paradox again, please answer all of these points. Any one of them is sufficient to debunk it as an argument that we are unique in the galaxy.
 
You do know it is called a "Paradox" because we refuse to believe that it is a simple and logical "Observation" don't you?

The arguments to explain away the "Paradox" amount to people who support a faith that has been proven invalid.
Nonsense. Can you refute each of my numbered points?
 
Nonsense. Can you refute each of my numbered points?


Believing in ETI is a faith not a science.

"Refuting" it would be like refuting Mormonism to a Mormon.

As technology advances and we learn more we find that the Universe is Life Hostile and we are just very lucky to have had Earth form the way it did. Fermi had a point. There is no paradox. People call it a paradox because they refuse to believe it.

I remember you had some sort of elaborate and incorrect interpretation on what Fermi meant. So I am going to pass on reading your apologist postings supporting your faith.

Let me ask you this. Are YOU a scientist? What is your profession?





Why not start a discussion threat supporting the existance of Santa Claus. I am completely serious. The logic to explain away Fermi's Paradox could just as easily be applied to the existance of Santa Claus. One could say "The North Pole is a huge area. It is absurd to think there is no Santa Claus there." just as logically as saying "There are billions of stars. It is absurd to think there is no other ETI near by".

If you study logic you will see that it is not possible to prove a negative. ONe cannot PROVE that there is no Santa Claus. People who want to believe will find a way to make up some reason why Santa exists. The same is with the ideas denouncing Fermi's Observation. I could fly you over the North Pole and you could say "Santa knew you were coming and he hid". To me it sounds exactly like the explainations for Fermi's paradox.

Are YOU a scientist? What is your profession?

I sense you are just a wishful thinking and hopeful sci-fi buff.


The galaxy could be full of civilizations exactly like ours, and we are undetectable to even our own technology not so far from here.

And if a tree falls in the woods and noone hears it, for all practical purposes, it did not make a noise.

There are other universes too. Some could be filled to the brim with life. But for all practical purposes, they are not there to us.

Dude, Star Trek is a fantasy. There is no warp drive. We ain't going to find the places that cannot be found.

5.) The probes would have to be absolutely ubiquitous for it to be impossible to have missed one. What if one passed through, checked out the Earth, and went on its way a mere 1 million years ago?

Are you good at math? I am serious. Fermi did not have probes in mind. He had colonization. When he asked "where are they" he knew in his mathicaly genius mind that if life was common in the Universe, the galaxy should be colonized by now. That is it. That is the end of story. No probes, dude. Someone taught you a buchet of hog wash.
 
Last edited:
1.) The galaxy could be full of civilizations exactly like ours, and we are undetectable to even our own technology not so far from here. At best you're only proving that much more advanced civilizations haven't existed for a long enough time to fill the galaxy with evidence of their existence. You've done nothing to address the possibility of the existence of civilizations on par with our own.
Exactly like ours? Statistically improbable. We are late comers. If life like ours comes about frequently, the galaxy should be colonized by now. This point is wrong
2.) The argument assumes a technology that is impossible by today's science. I'm not saying I know for sure FTL or near light speed transportation will never be achieved, but it's an especially weak argument that assumes that such a thing is certain.

That is right. You don't know. You don't know that FTL is not possible mathematically. You do not know the rules set down by the theory of relativity. This is why no one wants to argue with you about it.

You also do not know that Fermi's Paradox has nothing to do with FTL travel.

3.) Even if this tech is possible, the argument assumes that all intelligent civilizations will necessarily achieve everything that is possible. It could be that civilizations don't last long enough to, or it could be that it's economically unfeasible even if they do or that they lack the motivation to do it.

It does not matter why they are not here and why we seem to be alone. THe point is that it seems we are.
4.) Why do you use the absence of probes as evidence that no other intelligence in the galaxy exists and not that no other intelligence in the entire universe exists? If we're assuming magic technology, then why not assume quick and easy intergalactic transportation?

Why are you into probes? probes were sent to the moon before people walked on it. It is just a stepping stone.

Once again, it is about colonization, not exploration. If life like ours statistically came about often in the universe, our galaxy should be colonized by now.
5.) The probes would have to be absolutely ubiquitous for it to be impossible to have missed one. What if one passed through, checked out the Earth, and went on its way a mere 1 million years ago?

If you do not understand science, physics, mathematics, cosmology and Fermi's paradox, you should not argue against it. It is not about probes. It is about colonization.
In this case, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence in a court of law, in science, and in the scientific method. Your cute, musical sounding saying is just that and nothing more but a sing-song way to convince you of what you want to believe.
 
Back
Top Bottom