zapatos

When Dawkins writes a scientific paper it is reasonable to expect scientific language. When he writes a book for the masses the expectations are different. I'm glad you are not critiquing Keats or Shakespeare.

If you meant something different than what you said in the OP, just correct yourself. Don't dig the hole deeper.

Who put you in charge of what can and cannot be done? My daughter-in-law had a miscarriage. You will never convince her, or me, that we didn't lose a person. What magical transformation happens while passing through the birth canal? You need to expand your thinking a bit. It is not unreasonable to include all eggs as the upper limit of people who could be born. In which case, it is true that most people will never be born. Don't get bogged down by the words and miss the meaning.

Bugs and fish have little to do with why one activity is acceptable and the other is condemned. It is the human activity that is condemned or accepted. Switch the animals around and you find it is the person's actions that are judged. Stepping on insects is condemned; catching and releasing fish is accepted. Stepping on fish is condemned; catching and releasing insects is accepted.

Hate to break it to you, but... "If any extraterestial life is in the solar system and yet they did not connect Us, it is because they do think we are not ready." ...is not an 'analogy'. It is an assertion that you cannot support. Then quit telling us what they are thinking, which is what you did when you said "...they do think we are not ready." I do understand your analogies. That is why I was able to call out your use of a straw man. You have to try harder if you want to succeed here. Digging in your heels when it is obvious to all that you cannot support your claims makes you look childish. Bullshit. Einstein could communicate with children, he just didn't try to teach them Relativity.

Why couldn't it be because THEY are not ready? Claiming to know the mind of aliens is risky business.

Can you say "Strawman"?

We are currently all on a ship traveling through space and eventually something is bound to go wrong. What we are talking about is developing an escape from our current ship and moving on.

I think you are missing the point of the slow ark. Great speed is not necessary. It is not as if the people who depart Earth will arrive at the destination no matter how fast you go. It is the future generations who will arrive. Not everyone is completely lacking in curiosity or would consider finding new life to be beneath one's dignity. I'm guessing you don't bother to interact with many people who have cognitive disabilities.

Electromagnetic radiation is ubiquitous, and has the advantage of traveling at c. I think it is safe to assume that an advanced civilization will have discovered it and figured out how to use it. While it is certainly not the only communication medium, someone interested in talking to us will likely attempt multiple channels. We don't have to wait until we know everything to do something.

Yes, it does. My government can't even efficiently fix potholes on my street.

Moon is not suggesting we leave tomorrow, and therefore is not dependent on current technology. If the proposed future technology seems feasible, or it at least does not violate accepted physics, I'm unsure why he cannot reference it to discuss the future. The technology to colonize Mars does not exist but that doesn't keep reputable scientists from discussing it as a possible future endeavor. Discussions about the future are, almost by definition, required to speculate about future technologies.

I'll vote for another planetary system, although I am guessing the "little grey guys" are inflatable autopilots, as in "Airplane!" circa 1980. Robotic exploratory craft could have been sent to promising planetary systems a long time ago in the hunt for alien (us) life. Aliens probably were no more successful with their version of SETI than we are, and decided to take an active rather than passive approach to finding life.

Which of my posts was frustrating for you and why?

Thank you. Gets very frustrating some times.

Then why are you asking me which costs more?

Hmm. Not sure how that relates. I actually thought I was supporting your position on rape vs prostitution. As I've never gone to a prostitute I can't say I know what the price structure is. As I've never thrown money at a rape victim I'll have to plead ignorance on that one too. Perhaps you know which costs more?

You are a defense attorney's dream. Just tell your clients to throw some money at their victims after they've raped them and now they can only be convicted of being a 'John'. You might want to rethink your answer.

No one is denying this. However, you can't arbitrarily decide to eliminate random sources of wealth in your evaluation. It is also hard not to be rich if you inherit your wealth. How rich is America if we eliminate all wealth gained from inheritance?

Sort of like what is going on with Trump winning the 2020 election, Democrats being pedophile satan worshipers, the existence of miracles, the fake moon landing, fake school shootings, the government taking down the WTC, chemical contrails, Bill Gates installing microchips in people, New World Order, Deep State, False Flag Operations, Flat Earth, fake global warming, and thousands more.

Who isn't calm?

Religion lends itself to scientific scrutiny, such as claims about the age of the earth, where lightening comes from, and whether or not Sam Cook understood the beginnings of love: Cupid, draw back your bow And let your arrow go Straight to my lover's heart for me Perception, beliefs, and human behavior are also subject to scientific scrutiny. The supernatural does not lend itself to scientific scrutiny though.

Well said. But like all your other posts it is completely devoid of relevance to the topic at hand or even a relevant response to the post you are commenting on.

What has that got to do with evidence for gods? Waxing poetic is fine on a poetry site but will not get you far on a science site.

You are on a science site. I am talking about scientific evidence, not the evidence of god you find through the love in a mother's eyes, or in the flight of a butterfly on a summer's evening.