... As I recall, that topic is one of David s hobbies and he has thought to make a big deal of his argument from ignorance on it, along with some smoke &Message 1 of 1 , Jan 3, 2004View SourceDavid Willis wrote, in part:
> (T)here is indeed a "sobering" implicationAs I recall, that topic is one of David's hobbies and he has thought to
> from the fact that there SHOULD be
> sounds from other civilizationss out
> there, but there are not.
> He can see the implication. . . Robert
> has clenched his eyes tightly shut from
make a big deal of his "argument from ignorance" on it, along with some
smoke & mirrors involving numbers and statistics.
About all I have observed is that there are some who believe that we've
received no communications from other civilizations. Others claimed to
be in communications with E.T.'s on a rather regular basis (I tend to
doubt their claims, however).
I don't happen to think they are out there. However, I don't think
"silence" is any particular argument for whatever point it is that David
thinks he's trying to make with such stuff.
I did notice that David also wrote, in part:
> If atheistic abiogenesis. . . is true.As I recall, David had some problem in accepting "abiogenesis". It
looks like we've made some progress on that.
Those interested can check the archives for the previous discussion as
to the abiogenesis issue (as well the discussion on what inferences we
might draw from David's failing to hear from E.T.).