>>11794285>you don't need many data pointsThis is true. To generalize, you need two data points to know how common life should be out there. The first is the number of habitable worlds. We know that this one is pretty high. And the second data point you need is the probability of life spontaneously arising on a habitable world.
Sorry anon, but we don't have this second data point, even in this oversimplified model.
>If abiogenesis is figured outAbiogenesis in a laboratory isn't a meaningful data point. We aren't talking about how likely it is to happen in a laboratory. We're talking about how likely it is on a completely undisturbed world.
>Yes we do. If a planet remotely resembles earth in terms of chemical layout, we can be highly confident that the same things will happen. No we don't, and no we can't. We have no idea how likely abiogenesis was to happen on Earth. If it was extremely unlikely, it could have only happened once in the universe. You are arguing from the position that we are in an "average" situation in the universe, because that's what your everyday from your life on earth intuition tells you. But these are not everyday matters. You can't apply common sense to them, because you have no personal experience with them.
>That is how science works. Repeatable.Repeatability is why you need that second data point anon. Until you find a second example of life that naturally emerged, you have no statistical basis for claiming how likely life is to arise.
>I have arguments, you're just a retard.Your arguments are poor, and your conduct is defensive as if you have a personal stake in this. Maybe star trek just lied to you anon.
