What is "Earth-like"?

[Forty Two]

We can't even explain how life started in the first place. To claim that it is unlikely to appear again in today's conditions is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Good luck with that.

Well, logically, if it was "likely" to appear again in "today's conditions," then one would expect that it would occur from time to time because today's conditions, well, they, well, exist today, and have existed nearly thus for hundreds of millions of years, give-or-take....

"Occurring" and persisting are two different things.

Well, likely to occur means probably -- so, at least a bit more than 50%. If something has a bit more than 50% chance to occur "in our current conditions," then the result would be immense numbers of occurrences over hundreds of millions of years.

And, even if some life generating occurrence doesn't persist for long, the frequency of the happenings would guarantee some survival rate. If there has been a survival rate of these "likely" new life generating occurrences, then they are being generated over and over again, without being seen ever, and always in such a formation that they are indistinguishable from evolved life on Earth....

[Forty Two]

You are the one making claims.

The evidence that there is no evidence is the total lack of evidence.

don't even try...he's gone full Creationist....

:coffespray: You shouldn't even attempt to do logic, 42.

Life likely comes about over and over under our "current conditions." There is no evidence of this, but since nobody has shown me evidence that this hasn't happened, it's illogical to suppose it doesn't. I mean, it's possible that life just arises all the time, under our current conditions, and either disappears so quickly that we don't ever see it, or when it does persist, it has the uncanny ability to look exactly like it fits perfectly in the known evolution of life on Earth....
- Ervin Logic, 101.

You and "if I open this jar of peanut butter, new life should be in there from time-to-time" guy should really get together. You're using each other's arguments.

[pErvinalia]

You are the one making claims.

The evidence that there is no evidence is the total lack of evidence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not least when any novel lifeform would quickly be outcompeted and/or exploited by existing life.

Try again.

You're missing basic Logic 101, which is that in the circumstances where it can safely be assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it would be left behind, then in such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its nonoccurrence.

Stop trying to logic. It's above you. Making up assumptions and applying them post hoc to the argument is not very rational.

[pErvinalia]

We can't even explain how life started in the first place. To claim that it is unlikely to appear again in today's conditions is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Good luck with that.

Well, logically, if it was "likely" to appear again in "today's conditions," then one would expect that it would occur from time to time because today's conditions, well, they, well, exist today, and have existed nearly thus for hundreds of millions of years, give-or-take....

"Occurring" and persisting are two different things.

Well, likely to occur means probably -- so, at least a bit more than 50%. If something has a bit more than 50% chance to occur "in our current conditions," then the result would be immense numbers of occurrences over hundreds of millions of years.

And, even if some life generating occurrence doesn't persist for long, the frequency of the happenings would guarantee some survival rate.

It seems probability isn't one of your strong points either.

[pErvinalia]

You are the one making claims.

The evidence that there is no evidence is the total lack of evidence.

don't even try...he's gone full Creationist....

:coffespray: You shouldn't even attempt to do logic, 42.

Life likely comes about over and over under our "current conditions." There is no evidence of this, but since nobody has shown me evidence that this hasn't happened, it's illogical to suppose it doesn't. I mean, it's possible that life just arises all the time, under our current conditions, and either disappears so quickly that we don't ever see it, or when it does persist, it has the uncanny ability to look exactly like it fits perfectly in the known evolution of life on Earth....
- Ervin Logic, 101.

You and "if I open this jar of peanut butter, new life should be in there from time-to-time" guy should really get together. You're using each other's arguments.

Strawman fallacy to add to the list of shit arguments you've made. I've said nothing at all about the likelihood of new life occurring. I've only commented on the lack of evidence that rainbow has provided to back up his claim.

[Forty Two]

You are the one making claims.

The evidence that there is no evidence is the total lack of evidence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not least when any novel lifeform would quickly be outcompeted and/or exploited by existing life.

Try again.

You're missing basic Logic 101, which is that in the circumstances where it can safely be assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it would be left behind, then in such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its nonoccurrence.

Stop trying to logic. It's above you. Making up assumptions and applying them post hoc to the argument is not very rational.

My citation is Irving Copi's "Introduction to Logic" page 95. What's yours?

[Forty Two]

Strawman fallacy to add to the list of shit arguments you've made. I've said nothing at all about the likelihood of new life occurring. I've only commented on the lack of evidence that rainbow has provided to back up his claim.

Well, when you used the words "likely" and "under our current conditions" you absolutely did comment on the the likelihood. You said it was "likely."

It's not a strawman - it's what you wrote. What you're doing is backpedaling and hedging, because you know you're talking out of your ass. You're arguing from ignorance. You're just declaring that you don't know why life can't come about again, and again, under our current conditions, and proclaiming yourself victorious. Typical of you.

[Forty Two]

We can't even explain how life started in the first place. To claim that it is unlikely to appear again in today's conditions is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Good luck with that.

Well, logically, if it was "likely" to appear again in "today's conditions," then one would expect that it would occur from time to time because today's conditions, well, they, well, exist today, and have existed nearly thus for hundreds of millions of years, give-or-take....

"Occurring" and persisting are two different things.

Well, likely to occur means probably -- so, at least a bit more than 50%. If something has a bit more than 50% chance to occur "in our current conditions," then the result would be immense numbers of occurrences over hundreds of millions of years.

And, even if some life generating occurrence doesn't persist for long, the frequency of the happenings would guarantee some survival rate.

It seems probability isn't one of your strong points either.

[Svartalf]

You are the one making claims.

The evidence that there is no evidence is the total lack of evidence.

don't even try...he's gone full Creationist....

:coffespray: You shouldn't even attempt to do logic, 42.

Life likely comes about over and over under our "current conditions." There is no evidence of this, but since nobody has shown me evidence that this hasn't happened, it's illogical to suppose it doesn't. I mean, it's possible that life just arises all the time, under our current conditions, and either disappears so quickly that we don't ever see it, or when it does persist, it has the uncanny ability to look exactly like it fits perfectly in the known evolution of life on Earth....
- Ervin Logic, 101.

You and "if I open this jar of peanut butter, new life should be in there from time-to-time" guy should really get together. You're using each other's arguments.

Sorry, I got no gift for math or science, but I'm disgusted with religion.

[pErvinalia]

The evidence that there is no evidence is the total lack of evidence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not least when any novel lifeform would quickly be outcompeted and/or exploited by existing life.

Try again.

You're missing basic Logic 101, which is that in the circumstances where it can safely be assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it would be left behind, then in such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its nonoccurrence.

Stop trying to logic. It's above you. Making up assumptions and applying them post hoc to the argument is not very rational.

My citation is Irving Copi's "Introduction to Logic" page 95. What's yours?

Citation for what? Refuting the logic of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Go ahead, quote it. This should be a laff.

[pErvinalia]

Strawman fallacy to add to the list of shit arguments you've made. I've said nothing at all about the likelihood of new life occurring. I've only commented on the lack of evidence that rainbow has provided to back up his claim.

Well, when you used the words "likely" and "under our current conditions" you absolutely did comment on the the likelihood. You said it was "likely."

I said nothing of the sort. Are you on drugs?

It's not a strawman - it's what you wrote. What you're doing is backpedaling and hedging, because you know you're talking out of your ass. You're arguing from ignorance. You're just declaring that you don't know why life can't come about again, and again, under our current conditions, and proclaiming yourself victorious. Typical of you.

WTF? Where can we get some of this drug that you are on?

[pErvinalia]

Well, logically, if it was "likely" to appear again in "today's conditions," then one would expect that it would occur from time to time because today's conditions, well, they, well, exist today, and have existed nearly thus for hundreds of millions of years, give-or-take....

"Occurring" and persisting are two different things.

Well, likely to occur means probably -- so, at least a bit more than 50%. If something has a bit more than 50% chance to occur "in our current conditions," then the result would be immense numbers of occurrences over hundreds of millions of years.

And, even if some life generating occurrence doesn't persist for long, the frequency of the happenings would guarantee some survival rate.

It seems probability isn't one of your strong points either.

Add meme non-sequiturs to the growing list of shit arguments you are making...

[Forty Two]

In circumstances where "...it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

— Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95

Carl Sagan alluded to this in The Demon Haunted World, too (but, then you probably never read that either). During his life, Sagan explicitly criticized the phrase "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - since the statement is false, though absence of evidence is not necessarily strong evidence.

A better phrasing is "absence of evidence is not conclusive proof of absence." But, that doesn't sound as catchy.

[pErvinalia]

In circumstances where "...it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

— Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95

That's his opinion of what is reasonable, not logic. You don't even fucking know what logic is!

And what of your bullshit strawman? Are you hoping if you ignore it I will forget you just had a break from reality?

[rainbow]

In circumstances where "...it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

— Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95

Carl Sagan alluded to this in The Demon Haunted World, too (but, then you probably never read that either). During his life, Sagan explicitly criticized the phrase "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - since the statement is false, though absence of evidence is not necessarily strong evidence.

A better phrasing is "absence of evidence is not conclusive proof of absence." But, that doesn't sound as catchy.

Thank you, 42.

It isn't often that we agree, but in this case you are absolutely right.