• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why is life on planets "unable to sustain life" an impossibility?

The key part of the whole thing is life as we know it

Exactly. You cannot have science about any sort of life other than as we know it, since any other sort of life, by definition, has no data.
 
Exactly. You cannot have science about any sort of life other than as we know it, since any other sort of life, by definition, has no data.
There is the possiblity, of course, but no proof (as far as I know).
 
The key part of the whole thing is life as we know it

I am curious how much we would have to redefine our concept of life... such as life forms require oxygen to live. When NASA found arsenic based life it was in a lake, so even that life is dependent on water and oxygen. Also water (H2O) contains oxygen, so it seems normal to believe that all life would find water beneficial and that water and oxygen levels would play a role in evolution..
 
What you just described is called the "gambler's fallacy."

the "gambers fallacy" is actually something completely different.

"the fallacy is the belief that the "universe" somehow carries a memory of past results which tend to favor or disfavor future outcomes"

Gambler's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the fallacy is essentially changing the probability of an event based on past performance even though the actually probablility remains constant. this has nothing to do with rolling a "1" and then assuming that rolling a 1 is possible on a future roll.
 
I am curious how much we would have to redefine our concept of life... such as life forms require oxygen to live.

Anaerobic life, Not Just for Bacteria Anymore

Three species of Loricifera have been found in the sediments at the bottom of the L'Atalante basin in Mediterranean Sea, more than 3,000 meters down, the first multicellular organisms known to spend their entire lives in an oxygen-free environment. They are able to do this because they rely on hydrogenosomes (or similar organelles) instead of on mitochondria for energy.[7] [8]

Loricifera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Back
Top Bottom