Opponent picks topic.

I will start off by refuting his rebuttals, followed by his arguments. My opponent states that my source is absurdly wrong. However, he fails to notice that the site is the official W. M Keck observatory page. This site used scientists from USC, the University of Berkeley, and the University of Hawaii. If my opponent would like to argue how it is wrong, he may do so. It states that one in five stars, or 20%, have earth-like planets that can contain life in the Milky Way. His sources contradict mine, but mine are far more reliable. One of his is a "softpedia" page, and the other can easily be crossed out by another source [1]. Even if only 2.7% of stars have planets that can contain life, this means there are some 50 billion planets that have the ability to support life. By simply adjusting the stats, we can still make this into a better than 90% chance that intelligent life exists outside of Earth. My opponent then states that I can not simply assume that 0.5% of life-supporting planets have evolving species. Estimates range from 0-100% [see round 2 source]. He states that 0.000000001% is a better estimate with no evidence to back it up. I can just as easily say 99.99999999% is a better estimate because when life can evolve, it will. I await scientific evidence that 0.000000001% is a better estimate than 0.5%. Until then, this argument stands neutral. His math turns out to be 0.9 planets that have intelligent, communicating life. Aside from the fact this can easily be rounded out to 1 (AND the fact that it is 90%, or VERY LIKELY, which is exactly my BoP,) he doesn't show his math, which makes me question the reliability of it. He also fails to notice that I used VERY low estimates to prove my point. By just simply adjusting my math, I can still make it work out with very small numbers. Observe below:(Using 2.7% instead of 20% this time for the percentage that the planets can contain life). (1e+24)(0.027) = 2.7e+22(2.7e+22)(0.05)= 1.35e+21(1.35e+21)(0.000001)= 1.35e+15 (notice how I got rid of just one zero in the second multiplier. )(1.35e+15)(0.00000000001)= 13,500 planets that have the ability to communicate and is intelligent. Thus, even with (still) very low chances, 13,500 planets in the universe have the ability to communicate and is intelligent. If we use an 0.00001% for species evolving, we still only have to change the equation a little bit. (1e+24)(0.027= (2.7e+22)(2.7e+22)(0.000005) = 1.35e+17(1.35e+17)(0.000001) = 135000000000(135000000000)(0.000000001)= 135 (notice I removed two zeros)Even with an insanely small chance of evolution and everything else, we STILL come out as a full, whole number. Also note this is using my opponent's loose statistics. I can also argue that if we give life 4.6 billion years to evolve (like Earth) life would be intelligent a good amount of the time because of Earth. This is the same logic my opponent uses in his arguments (without the flaws, as I will now point out. )My opponent's argument suggests that if there is no evidence apparent, then it obviously doesn't exist. I have but a few kind words for the opposition: absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. We know the basic fundamentals of life, such as water. We also know that life can THRIVE in extreme places on Earth alone [2], so who's to say that life can't thrive one extreme planets? We can be almost certain about space due to the age of technology. Multiple studies have been done, with most credible ones suggesting much more or more than 1% of stars have planets in their orbit than can contain life. Why is clearer fossil data clearly needed? We don't have fossil records for many things. You also state that the main piece of information is Earth, but it is not sufficient. How so? You do not state evidence for your claim. Common sense claims that at least ONE in 1e+24 stars would have planets that contain life, correct? Also, your link is broken, leaving your claims empty. I eagerly await my opponent's arguments! [1] . http://www.extremetech.com...[2] . http://www.nss.org...