There are animals in nearly every country not found in other countries (usually because of climate).

Whats your point?

Well I want to clarify a bit:

-I was not trying to imply that you were saying it was the only way to travel interstellar distances, only that you were assuming it was the most efficient way since it was the only method seriously considered.

-In your reply you assumed this again by stating that any other method would necessarily require more energy.

The problem is that we don't have a fundamental understanding of the way the universe works and without that we can't say with any certainty whether or not there exist a method to cheaply (relatively, in terms of energy input) fold space for the purpose of interstellar travel.  Science has certainly proven by now that many things were thought impossible right up until they were shown to be possible, in this case its actually thought to be possible to begin with. So call me an optimist but I'm not prepared to rule it out.

Really, what I'm saying is that your post did not show how difficult the trip would be for an advanced ET, you actually showed how difficult it would be for mankind at our current technology.  I say this because that's what all of your examples are implicitly geared towards due to your inability to know the unknown.  And until we learn a great deal more about the universe that will remain true.

Now to answer your other point about why they would visit us, I honestly have no idea and anything I say would be pure speculation, but for fun: It could be anything from social interest, to research, to a feeling of responsibility or something as cheesy and simple as the galactic federation mandating that all societies above a certain technological level be monitored for evaluating when they are worthy of first contact.  Or perhaps they visit to take technology as you pointed out, after all it seems unlikely they would have the exact same focuses as we do so its entirely possible we are more advanced in some areas. There are enumerable reasons and we should also consider that they are motivated in fundamentally different ways since we know that our own motivation is (at least in part) a function of our brain design/chemistry.  Again these are all pure speculation.

Which is why I wanted to point out again that I'm not convinced they are visiting us, what I am convinced of is that no person can legitimately claim to prove they have not visited us for the reasons I've gone over.  I am convinced that the majority of alleged UFO sightings are either hoaxes, horribly ignorant/dubious witnesses who are wrong/embellishing , or in some cases Military FUD (I personally wouldn't miss the opportunity in their shoes, its a great way to cover up the testing of experimental aircraft).  I believe that at best a small percentage of cases are actually UFOs (in the literal sense) and among those I'm unconvinced either way that any are ET related.

I understand your position and I certainly think the position itself, that they have not visited us, is a sound and reasonable one.  Really my only gripe is that you claimed to be able to prove it.  Personal certainty is one thing, claims of proof and declarations that others are wrong is another thing.  In fairness I think you were just trying to stress your point, but I suppose I shouldn't put words in your mouth so I'll let you speak to that if you wish.

This is a logical fallacy known as begging the question:

"In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy (also called petitio principii) in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises."

You cannot assume that god created everything to prove that he exists because you cannot assume he exists while trying to prove that he does.

If your statement was phrased as a logical proposition and reduced to its simplest state it would read like this:  "God exists because god exists.".  This is obviously not a valid argument.

RE: Noah's Ark.

It did happen, its just that the biblical as well as the older babylonian version are simply taken way out of context and in particular the Biblical version shows what happens when a story has been orally transcended over thousands of years.

It is not a flood that encompassed the entire Earth nor did it literally have 2 of every species. Australia, Antarctica, as well as the Americas in general easily disprove this. However, it was a major catastrophic event where a massive flood affected a large portion of the real character's "world". This 'Noah', if you think there really were prophets as I do, received prior warning and built an ark to save his family and, more than likely, his estate, i.e. farm and animals.

If Noah was a prophet, he would have been glorified for being right, just like Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad. All 3 have stories remembered for the ages and all three have had them embellished by their later followers. Same would go here for Noah. Thus, this regional event turned into a global flood that saved all life, not just his.

I think its more like Sodom and Gomorrah. Where a special family was saved from a 'cleansing' event.

Anywho, back on topic. Still Fernando has shown absolutely zero evidence that any religious literature specifies that God has only created life on this planet.

i agree!! ^.^ seriously!

The noah story is a fraud and the Bible should be kept far away from any scientific debate.

 Ah okay. In that case, i obviously agree!

We may or may not have been visited by UFO's (the ridiculous amount of secrecy the government enforces when discussing these issues leads me to believe something has happened in the past), but there is almost certainly some other lifeforms in our ludicrously large universe.

Read my post I posted earlier in this same thread I explain a lot of stuff you people have been arguing about but apparently no one bothered to read my post.