Because you failed to correctly quote me correctly and your response was one giant box above, I had to do it as follows:
"in this regard again my theory is as good as yours."
No it's not. One relies on the actual data/facts as they exist to support the theory (really a hypothesis BTW), one relies on "I believe" based on nothing. If you can't see the difference, then you really have no business being in such a conversation. "I don't believe" is not a theory, when it's not supported by anything.
"to reiterate, you didn';t exactly come up with a theory yourself..just used mathematical probability."
Actually I do, and many a hypothesis is based on mathematical probability. It's the strength of that probability model that gives it power or not. What do you think Einstein's theories were/are based on until some were physically supported, while others are still only in the mathematical model.
"...which again I could use as well..."
Go right ahead. Use mathematical probability to show that life on other planets is unlikely when there are over 100 billion stars in our galaxy, 300 billion (known) galaxies, hundreds of plants already discovered, etc, etc. Even if you plug the most pessimistic numbers into the Drake equation, you comes up with an astounding number of civilizations.
" still present no scientific evidence"
See above. Are you actually paying attention here? The issue is, the strength of that evidence, but only you have supplied none.
"advances in technology can be much much slower than we think..you are talking as if all these wonderful spce travel breakthroughs are right around the corner....."
I don't recall making any comments about anything being around the corner, though as stated, breakthroughs come in fits and starts vs linear.
"there's your "probability" theory again..is this all you have??..still no solid evidence"
Vs. yours which to date, totals "I don't believe" supported by exactly nothing. Who has the stronger hypothesis here? I do. Depending on the strength of the probability, it can be close to 100%. The probability of you being injured from jumping off a 30 story building is damn close to 100%, etc. Probability states nothing can be 100%, as there is a 0.0000000000000000000000
1% chance you might land on a hot air balloon that just happened to be passing by at that very moment, and so on.
"...puting people in stasis is not possible and is difficult to achieve since we haven't found a way to reanimate someone we have frozen."
All true, but not at all outside our future technological/,medical technology. I know the people doing that work for example, and they have brought higher animals (dogs, etc) back to life after several days at this point.
"...and the trip in stasis would last maybe hundreds if not thousands of years.....who is going to maintain the equipment for that long???..robots?..yeah right!!!..and building these huge arc ships that you talk about would cost an arm and leg and we don't have the technology to do this and won't for a very long time...."
Not actually relavent to the conversation. Costs, the will of people, etc, is another issue.
"these big breakthroughs you talk about cost a lot of money in terms of research and implementation.....we are talking trillions upon trillions....and we don't even know where to go.....in which direction do we point ourselves???..we will embark on a vast unknown trip to nowhere and get WHAT out of it?"
What do you think? It is the human condition that we need to explore and learn, and know what's out there. Why people jumped into ships, thinking the world was flat, having no idea where they would land, but off they went...
