Could 'Goldilocks' planet be just right for life?

Associated Press ^ | Wed Sep 29, 7:19 pm ET | By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer

[Redcitizen]

WASHINGTON – Astronomers say they have for the first time spotted a planet beyond our own in what is sometimes called the Goldilocks zone for life: Not too hot, not too cold. Juuuust right.

Not too far from its star, not too close. So it could contain liquid water. The planet itself is neither too big nor too small for the proper surface, gravity and atmosphere.

It's just right. Just like Earth.

"This really is the first Goldilocks planet," said co-discoverer R. Paul Butler of the Carnegie Institution of Washington.

[UCANSEE2]

Yes, we are composed of stardust, but stardust did not arrange itself into a DNA molecule.

True. DNA , also, follows a GRAND DESIGN.

[UCANSEE2]

There is exactly one data point regarding life in the universe.

That we know of. Of course, we don't 'know' much.

Wait till we at least find data point number 2 before making your grand analogy of life on earth with poison ivy.

That could take 10,000 years.

[RockinRight]

I say if we can confirm no intelligent life is there it’s fair game for whoever gets there first.

If the Mooselimbs want to turn Earth into a 7th century camel orgy, let them - if we have a world to go to!

[reagan_fanatic]

I'm torn between going there myself, or stuffing it full of liberals and hitting the launch button.........

I'd vote for the latter, although it could start an interplanetary war. No one wants somebody else's trash dumped on them.

[Boogieman]

“What will the deniers say when thousands of planetary systems are being cataloged and discovered orbiting stars, which are extremely similar to earths orbit, orbiting stars similar to our own sun?”

Well, firstly, the planet in question, as others have pointed out is hardly habitable. Perhaps marginally habitable at best.

However, that’s beside the point I was making. His statement is basically, if there is water, there is life. This is a huge leap that is unsupported by evidence. We do see life most places on Earth where there is water, however, we’ve never found life anywhere else in the universe, so we can associate the presence of water and the presence of life only on Earth with any degree of certainty.

If we took some rocks and water and atmosphere, put it all in a sealed jar, and sterilized it, we could come back in a few years and we would still not find any life. The reason we find life on Earth where there is water, is because life already exists on Earth, and it will spread itself into any niche it can adapt to and survive. However, in the absence of life, we have no evidence that it would, or any concrete conception of how it could, spontaneously appear.

[dragnet2]

Well, firstly, the planet in question, as others have pointed out is hardly habitable. Perhaps marginally habitable at best.

First ya say hardly habitable, then it's, "Perhaps marginally"... No offense, but the only fact known here, is that you have *no* idea what type of life may or may not exist on that particular planet...

His statement is basically, if there is water, there is life. This is a huge leap that is unsupported by evidence.

I agree with that and will say there very well might be life forms that do not require water, and might require something else all together to survive.

We do see life most places on Earth where there is water, however, we’ve never found life anywhere else in the universe, so we can associate the presence of water and the presence of life only on Earth with any degree of certainty.

I'm not sure what this means..As we don't have the capability to even search the "universe" let alone our very own galaxy.

[Boogieman]

“First ya say hardly habitable, then it’s, “Perhaps marginally”...”

Yes, I decided to be generous and grant that it MIGHT be marginally habitable.

“No offense, but the only fact known here, is that you have *no* idea what type of life may or may not exist on that particular planet...”

Exactly, and neither does the gentleman whose quoted I was speaking of, and yet he declared with certainty that if there was water there, there would be life.

“I’m not sure what this means..As we don’t have the capability to even search the “universe” let alone our very own galaxy.”

Well, it means: we have only found life on Earth, so the situation on Earth is therefore the only situation in which we can reasonably judge a relation between water and life. Simply because, on Earth, life and water have a relationship, doesn’t mean that relationship would hold true anywhere else. It’s an unsupportable assumption.

[newguy357]

There is exactly one data point regarding life in the universe.
That we know of. Of course, we don't 'know' much.

Right, that's exactly what I'm getting at. A data point is by definition something you know and possess. We have exactly one data point regarding life in the universe.

Wait till we at least find data point number 2 before making your grand analogy of life on earth with poison ivy.
That could take 10,000 years.

Of course it could. And until it happens, we can draw lines in any direction from our one data point, but each line is completely useless and devoid of any information.

[SunkenCiv]

/bingo