[AnotherUnixGeek]

Given the fact that there are at least a hundred billion galaxies in the universe, and that each galaxy has at least a hundred billion stars, I have no doubt that there are millions or billions of planets in the universe that support life,

Given that there are at least a hundred billion inclines in the universe, and that each incline has to have something at the top as well as something at the bottom, I have no doubt that there are millions or billions of inclines in the universe where water can defy gravity and flow uphill.....

The statement you responded to draws it's conclusion from the fact that there is at least one star in this galaxy with a planet that supports life. The statement you make draws it's conclusion from...what? Why do you think this is analogous to the first statement or that it refutes the first statement?

[papertyger]

The statement you make draws it's conclusion from...what?

The fact that the entire "chances of" rationale fundamentally misstates the problem. How many chances you have of obtaining a certain outcome are largely irrelevant apart from correctly evaluating the events required for that outcome to take place.

In a very real sense, the whole line of reasoning is predicated on "the gambler's fallacy." ....hence my reference to Michael Crichton and his famous speech on the Drake Equation before SETI.