////Arthur C. Clarke's Three Laws:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost
certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Other good observations by Clarke:
I'm sure the universe is full of intelligent life. It's just been too intelligent to come here.

If we have learned one thing from the history of invention and discovery, it is that, in the long run — and often in the short one — the most daring prophecies seem laughably conservative.///

Oh, well, then if Arthur C. Clarke said it then I guess that proves it. Is that what you're saying?

////Rare Earth was published in 2000. That seems pretty recent, but between such things as the Mars rovers wandering around, sniffing and tasting (last telemetry received in 2005 as I recall, so apparently they are now defunct), and all the work being done with the Hubble Telescope and such, the fields of astronomy, cosmology, and exobiology are moving quite quickly, with new data being received every day. By the time a book is published, some of the information (and the speculation based in it) is outdated.

This is why I DO read books in these fields—BUT rely for really recent findings on periodicals such as "Astronomy" magazine, plus a couple of web sites. And a friend who works in the University of Washington's astrobiology department.///

Here's the problem I'm having with you, Firth: you have provided not a single shred of evidence to back up anything you've and I hate arguing with people who ojust say "You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong!!!" But are too afraid themselves to provide sources. What's the matter? Afraid I or someone else in here will cut your sources down the way you've tried to do to mine? Oh, yeah, trust me--quoting your source in this forum is either very stupid or very gutsy because they WILL attack your sources and do everything in their power to ridicule them and then demand an apology if you take them to task for it. And like pitbulls, they will not let it go and will keep arguing and arguing the same pointless shit until you're half-crazy hearing from them over and over again.

Here's another problem I have with you, Firth: you talk like you're just so well read and I'm not. Yes, Firth, I'll be honest--I have never read a single book in my life other than "Rare Earth." I mean, why would I? Astronomy magazines, science texts--well, why would I read those??? I just paid for my papers that got me through college. Why write them when I've only read one book in my entire life and will never even consider reading another?

Ok--here's the deal: You say "Rare Earth" is a worthless piece of junk that isn't worth the time it takes to flick it from cover to cover. So give us a critique. Tell us precisely what is wrong with it--feel free to quote entire passages. And back up your assertions with statements by qualified people and that means the name of the periodical or book and the page number(s). Since you know the book so well, that ought to be a piece of cake. And no quoting Arthur Clarke unless it is actually evidence rather than his opinions.

One Steve Shaw in here is enough (well, at least you didn't mention Darwin).