““Doesn’t have much evidence on which to base the conclusion that earth is the only place in the universe where life exists.””
“Rather odd logic.”
No, it is not “odd logic” at all, because it correctly observes that rejecting a speculative conjecture without a basis in experimental observation constitutes a false conclusion. Your argument constitutes a logical fallacy.
“I agree no conclusion can be made, either way.”
That comment serves as a strawman argument by switching the subject away from the discussion of a speculative conjecture about a probability to a the entirely different subject or whether or not a non-speculative theory is currently proven. The discussion of the probability for a speculative conjecture can produce a speculative conclusion without an attempt to reach a non-speculative conclusion about the results of a future non-speculative theory.
“But the fact Is there is 100% evidence for life here and so far zero for life anywhere else.”
Fifty years ago I predicted the probability of exoplanets being found some day was likely to be 100 percent. I had university professors who denied the possibility while arguing to the contrary the Solar System was likely to be unique in having multiple planets. They cited the large percentage of solar systems having multiple stars that would they presumed to disrupt the formation of planets. As I argued fifty years ago, our development of technologies capable of sensing exoplanets gave us the ability to detect them. Likewise, the development of new technologies and sufficient time in which to use them will be necessary to detect any alien civilizations. It should also be noted any alien civilizations we detect may be extinct by the time the evidence of their existence has sufficient time to arrive here on the Earth.
“It would seem from a logical or scientific perspective, the onus of proof is on those who would claim there is life elsewhere, not on disproving a purely speculative claim of life elsewhere.”
On the contrary, it is quite illogical for you to propose it is necessary to provide experimental evidence sufficient to sustain a hypothesis and its subsequent theory of the existence of life elsewhere in the Universe in order to reach a conditional speculative conclusion about a speculative probability of there being life or no life elsewhere in the Universe.
Given the propensity for the building blocks of life to self-organize due to their inherent chemistries, it appears to be virtually impossible for life to have failed to develop countless times in the Milky Way Galaxy and the vast ocean of galaxies elsewhere in the Universe.
“Fifty years ago I predicted the probability of exoplanets being found some day was likely to be 100 percent. I had university professors who denied the possibility while arguing to the contrary the Solar System was likely to be unique in having multiple planets.”
I think you are clearly a visionary genius.
“...it appears to be virtually impossible for life to have failed to develop countless times in the Milky Way Galaxy and the vast ocean of galaxies elsewhere in the Universe.”
Yes, definitely. We must all dogmatically accept multiple life elsewhere unless it can be disproven.
Given the propensity for the building blocks of life to self-organize due to their inherent chemistries, it appears to be virtually impossible for life to have failed to develop countless times in the Milky Way Galaxy and the vast ocean of galaxies elsewhere in the Universe.
...
Life appears to be very rare in our own Solar System, and even rare on Earth if you use an objective measurement like a ratio of biomass to mass.