I provided no evidence of any other life form. There is no such life form, just as alchemists don't change lead into gold. It's a fantasy, hence my comment about God.
It's not 1%, but there is a "Goldilocks zone" for having open oceans of liquid water. Of course, even that is no hard-and-fast restriction on the possibility of life. Europa, a moon of Jupiter, is well outside the "Goldilocks zone" but is believed to have an ocean of liquid water beneath an ice crust and that ocean is likely to resemble the deep ocean environment on Earth. Scientists think that they may find life in that, once they have the technology to properly and safely investigate.
That isn't what we were talking about, silly. We were talking about whether life could be different from humans, and you provided evidence of that. Of course, we also have plenty of evidence in the diversity of life on Earth that shows that life can function differently from us. As a flim-flam man, you just don't talk fast enough.
The earth is no closer than 91.4M miles and no further than 94.5M miles away from the sun in its slightly elliptical orbit. The difference is less than 1/30th of the closest or furthest distance.
It's unclear if anyone has turned lead into gold, but it is entirely possible theoretically. Turning bismuth into gold has been done, 30 years ago. barfo
I already agreed that it could. As I patiently explained, there's evidence that life can be different from humans, whereas there's no evidence that god exists. I see that crucial difference, yes.
There is evidence life can be different from humans, but that's something of a strawman. Life as we know it is not just humans.
Really? Gosh, I thought it was. If you understand how bismuth was turned into gold, you'll see that lead to gold can be done as well. barfo
I'm glad you now agree with that, after trying to claim otherwise in several previous posts. That's the entire point. Life as we know it is not just humans, so a planet exactly like the homeland of humans is not necessary for life. Why? Because life as we know it is not just humans. So, if by "strawman" you mean "a very germane point to whether life may exist elsewhere," then we're completely in agreement.
I claimed there is no silicon based life, you changed the subject to life different from humans which is not the same thing as life different from carbon based life. By strawman, I mean changing the argument as you did and arguing against it. I don't at all suggest that a planet needs to support humans to support life. If you visited the earth 200M years ago, there weren't any humans.
Sequence of events: 1. You tried to constrain the places life could exist to planets identical to Earth (by listing a series of characteristics about Earth) in an effort to show how unlikely it is that life could exist elsewhere 2. I pointed out that considering life could be different from humans, a planet didn't need to be identical to Earth 3. You asked me for evidence that life could be different from humans 4. I pointed out that chemistry and biology show that there are other biologically viable forms life could take 5. You mentioned one of them--silicon-based life 6. You then forgot what you were arguing and returned to saying there's no evidence that life can be different than humans 7. I explained that you're confusing yourself and have already admitted the evidence exists 8. You became flustered and fired off the sequence of non-sequitors quoted above We on the same page now? Strange then that you used Earth's characteristics as the requirements for life!
you're confusing evolution and abiogenesis again. also evolution does not say life should adapt to any possible conditions. it only says the best adapted have the best chance of surviving and reproducing. the chance may still be zero either way. it makes zero sense to have as a starting assumption that it's an extreme longshot that life should exist on earth. that is nothing more than typical human egocentrism. it's a very religious attitude in fact. when you factor in the size of the universe it's not hard to make a statistical/philosophical case that our existence is more likely to be an indicator that life exists everywhere it can in the universe than that life on earth is highly improbable, and the most likely answer is in between the two extremes.
Look at the evidence. Where we do have life, it diversifies to a huge degree and flourishes. Life has resisted mass extinction events. Life existed in poisonous environments, extreme cold and heat. No, I don't confuse abiogenesis with evolution. My position is quite scientific. A healthy dose of skepticism until there's evidence to support some unproven hypothesis. I find the actual religious attitude to be the one that believes in something without a shred of evidence to support it (e.g. life elsewhere). As I've repeatedly said, if we find a single cell that's not of this world, I would wholly accept the idea that life is prevalent virtually everywhere. If it were, though, we'd be able to see it from earth with a telescope - on the moon, on mars, etc.
you are doing just that. as far as we know the reason life diversifies (evolution) may have little to do with how it originiated (abiogenesis). the fact that life diversifies and adapts on earth doesn't say anything about the odds of it originating elsewhere. all you can say is it should be expected to adapt if/when it does originate. evolution and abiogenesis COULD be related, but at this point we don't know that. you're not just being skeptical. you are effectively stating your own hypothesis that life on earth was an improbable accident. it's one thing to be agnostic on the subject, but you are taking the position that there is a reason (evidence) to hold as a starting assumption that life is improbable - until proven otherwise. you are doing the very thing you accuse scientists of doing. there IS evidence and scientists try to make an objective judgement of probability based on what they know. they do not "believe" anything without evidence. by taking the position that life is necessarily improbable until proven otherwise you are in fact the one who is doing that. if life requires certain conditions why would you expect it to be prevelant virtually everwhere? your all or nothing mentality is silly. life could exist in trillons of places in the universe and we may never have the technology to detect it.
abiogenesis -> life -> reproduction -> copy errors -> diversity -> evolution I am NOT in any way confusing the two. You say there is evidence, but there isn't. There is only theoretical probabilities, which I've countered (1/3^24). I make no assumptions other than nature and physics work the same everywhere (but inside black holes). Take a good look at your last sentence. Replace "life" with "God" and you can see how religious your statement is. "God could exist in trillions of places in the universe and we may never have the technology to detect Him." You are espousing the belief in something that cannot be seen or known. I'm not at all arguing God exists, because I am dubious, at best, that he does. My "all or nothing" view is not hard to understand. If life exists in 2 places, it exists in 3, 4, ... n.
No, that's insane. There's a big difference between saying "X could exist" and "I have faith that X exists". No one is claiming life exists in exactly two places. But your claim that if it exists more than one place, it must exist everyplace, is completely without logic. barfo
