Sentient, technological beings exist only on earth

I would like to set forth some definitions to guide this debate: Sentient – having senses, as in touch, smell, etc. Technology – anything designed to make life easier for humans. Sickles are technology, and so are cars I will now move into some refutation of my opponent’s points. A lot of them (all) were merely based off of assumptions backed with no evidence. Given that carbon has existed since this universe was ca. 5 billion years old Not all life must be carbon based. This is a logical fallacy assuming everything in the universe are like humans. Assuming that this advancement will continue to accelerate at or near historical precedents. This is nothing but an unfounded assumption considering how our space program has already been shut down. Venturing into space has not become a thing of the past. Assuming that this advancement will include exploration and occupation of this solar system within at most 1000 years; and subsequent exploration and occupation of this galaxy within at most 1 million years. First of all, travelling to space is ridiculously expensive. The Apollo program’s chewed up billions and billions of American dollars. Secondly, travel to Mars would take 10 years for a round trip. That means in 1000 years 100 trips can be made to Mars alone. Occupation of this solar system will not be possible for hundreds of thousands and thousands of years. Assuming that these activities will lead to visible changes. This is another baseless assumption. Humans are smart, but not to the point where we will be manipulating planets. We can’t even guarantee safe and fresh water, yet you want us to start changing the orbits of other planets? ? If we survive our descendants will almost certainly engage in these and countless other (currently unimaginable) galaxy changing activities. We are not god. Furthermore, some scientists estimate that humans will go extinct within 100 years [1]. At our current rate of consumption of goods and the destruction of our planet, we will almost certainly not reach 1 million years from now. Furthermore, no matter how far we advance we will not advance to the point where we will be changing billions of tons of matter. This is ridiculous. This could/should have been happening for the last 5 billion years. Humans have been possible for 5 billion years. We have only been here for 3000 years, barely a fraction of that time. Evolution takes time, we cannot assume that another race burst from the ground fully formed and evolved. If only one capable race developed every million suitable years, then there have been over 5000 opportunities to achieve the above mentioned technologies in this galaxy alone. As I have shown not every planet will have people that evolved spontaneously. Furthermore, the fact that this has not happened in our galaxy means nothing because nothing can manipulate the galaxy if they advanced at the speed that we have. Secondly, the closest galaxy is 25 000 light years away [2], so anything we see now happened 25, 000 years ago so we wouldn’t be able to observe any changes to their galaxy until 25 000 years from now. Multiply this by 50 billion galaxies like our own. I have refuted this point already. I will now move on to my constructive argument, having refuted my opponent’s. C1: CHANCES The universe is constantly expanding, proof of which can be found in the distance stars are from Earth. They are constantly getting further and further away, suggesting that the universe continues to expand. There are billions and billions of planets in the universe that we cannot observe, yet the chances are that life exists on those planets. If Earth was a 1/1 million, then there should be 50, 100, 200 other planets just like Earth with sentient life. Why can’t life exist on other planets when there are so many? Furthermore, water has been found on Mars [3], and water is necessary for life as we know it. Mars is so close to us, who knows? Perhaps in millions of years organisms would evolve from that water just like we did on Earth. There are so many galaxies with many more planets than ours; the odds that we are alone are astronomical! In our galaxy alone there are billions of planets that could contain life! [4] To suggest that we are alone goes against the laws of probability! Clearly the odds are that other life exists out there, this is the only argument needed as it fulfills my BOP. I have refuted all of my opponent’s assumptions so it is a clear vote CON. SOURCES:1. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 2. . http://www.google.ca... 3. . http://www.udreview.com... 4. . http://www.space.com...