[Chainmail]

"Who told you? Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

I see. So if this multi-Billion dollar boondoggle scoots around, sniffing and drilling and finds nothing - it just means that "it didn't search in the right place" or "it didn't drill deep enough"?

Or is it more likely that just having water and throwing a few minerals around won't "generate" life?

Idiots still can't face the very real probability that life showed up here on Earth and nowhere else.

[PIF]

So in our Universe there are trillions of galaxies each with hundreds of billions of stars, each star having at least one planet, but only on a small planet in an insignificant galaxy located on a backwater arm of that galaxy is there life on that planet and only that one? Can you do the math here: Every solar system has at least one planet; there are 100,000,000,000-400,000,000,000 stars in the Milky Way; how many planets is that?

Have you ever looked at the odds of your very limited proposition? And you assumptions are just wild speculations about a probe that has barely landed.

[Kevmo]

Coppedge calculated the probability of a single polypeptide forming into an amino acid at 10^-23. You need hundreds of thousands of these for a single cell organism. So the probability of life forming by chance here on earth was on the order of 10^-trillion-trillion-trillion.

There may be billions of life-capable planets but that just shaves off 9 orders of magnitude off the probability.

[Does so]

Idiots still can't face the very real probability that life showed up here on Earth and nowhere else.

We are alone.