(Unfinished, disproven, unholy, and problematic) theory of Evolution consists of following chapters: Theory of Big Bang, Theory of Cosmic Evolution, Theory of Biological Evolution (Darwin's Theory), Social Darwinism.
The Fermi paradox is the contradiction between Theory of Evolution and the sterility of the cosmos.
Conclusions: assuming, that the God does not interfere into physical world, we came to contradiction. Thus, the God interferes.
The aim of the Theory of Evolution is the proof of Atheism. It has failed.
Conclusion: the UFO activity on Earth is the demonic activity, because the cosmos is sterile. Indeed, if the UFO is highest technical machine, it needs a huge technical civilization with huge production facilities and exploitation of nature resources to make UFO. Such one must be seen in our telescopes.
Portal (wormhole) between measurements (between places in time and space) cannot be opened. The portal, when it just occurs, has an infinite curvature. Well look: a circle with a radius of 10 meters has a curvature of the circle line as 1/10 = 0.10. A circle of radius 0.01 meters has a curvature of 100. However, there can be no infinity in the physical world, where everything can be measured (at least in principle). Infinite curvature cannot be measured. Therefore, the portal cannot be opened.
The criticism, that the Humankind is just very lucky to exist within observable part of infinite Universe, and what it miraculously passed through the deadly "filters"; faces the fact, that miracles can not be part of material Theory of Evolution. Any theory is just the consequence of initial input. Therefore, miracles and luck is not the part of a pure material theory.
Opponent ("Opponent" is a fictional character): "perhaps aliens are like our plants and animals. They live happily without any technology."
It contradicts the Theory of Evolution. Latter is the LAW, which justifies our transition from Big Bang to Cosmic Era. If such success is unique, then it is miracle. Thus, there is no Theory of Evolution.
Opponent: "you are a troll."
Was Jesus Christ murdered for "trolling"? Yes. So, I am in very good company then.
Because I face a trolling and satanic disrespect at journals,
I simply need two billion of US dollars to start my own journal company. And time to make it respectful. Then I will accept my own papers without any referee help.
Yes, being the chief editor, I will sent my papers to the referees. But I will not accept any trolling from them. They must find mistakes, not troll my papers.
I have my own science. Enter my worldview or stay outside.
Opponent: "We don't know which one of them are the correct answers yet, and maybe never will, but ignorance of knowing the answer isn't evidence.
Here Are 50 Possible Solutions to the Fermi Paradox..."
- Please define Knowledge.
- Well, it is what your Church knows.
- My Church does not believe in Evolution.
- So, you know then, that Evolution is wrong. But my church believes in Evolution. I am catholic, you know.
- yes, it is your knowledge then. But my knowledge is different. Because I am orthodox. I can modify your knowledge while the discussion.
- But, suppose, that I am Buddhist, and you can not modify Buddhism.
- I can add something new to your Buddhism, e.g., I have my own proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. And to make you believe, that some definitions in textbooks are not consistent with reality, or can be improved. The Buddhism says, that there is Natural World. Correct? The Buddhism says, that there are rules and processes in Nature. Correct? Thus, I am adding to the Natural Processes new information. Look: the Buddhism is your (not my) base, all knowledge even mathematical must be part of ones religion. First comes religion, then comes science. There is no conflict between True Religion and True Science. Here "true" means "without wrong knowledge."
Opponent: "All evolution can do is explain the differentiation of species on Earth. The Fermi paradox doesn't involve evolution but fanciful ideas about aliens."
Do not quote textbooks. Use my definition of Theory of Evolution. I have my own science. Enter my worldview or stay outside. P.S. It is wrong to doubt own saying in public arena. One can doubt own thoughts, but never bring the doubt to public.
Opponent: "There are over a dozen objections to the paradox. The paradox does not prove anything."
I have presented in this thread the objections to all objections of the paradox.
Opponent: "We will not tolerate USSR style scientific indoctrination. If you don't accept the scientific results then that is not Ok."
Telling what's on my heart is indoctrination now? Was Jesus the "indoctrinator" too? Yes. I am in good company then. The "absence of Biblical God" can never be scientific result.
Opponent: "You addressed strawman arguments. Still proved nothing."
You can not disprove my "strawman" arguments, can you? If not, I have won.
Opponent: "Would you please advise how a hypothesis based on incomplete and unknown information, that is riddled with guesswork in any way disproves anything?"
GENIUS. SOMEBODY here is simply GENIUS!