Opponent picks topic.

First, allow me to point out that the BoP allowed intelligent life to exist anywhere, not just extraterrestrial. Thus, I have met my BoP because intelligent life exists on Earth. However, I don't want a win that way, but I just want to point that out to the voters. Without further ado, onto the debate! My opponent states that I should add 50 billion to the start of my equation because that's how many planets in the universe can contain life. However, the 50 billion statistics were in the Milky Way alone... meaning he didn't take into account the other 1e+12 galaxies in the universe. Thus, this does not work, as it only accounts for our own galaxy. Even if I take his advice, we end up with 5e+22 planets in the universe with the ability to sustain life (50,000,000,000 per galaxy, 1e+12 galaxies) which, you know, works for me. Now, my opponent makes an argument that suggests he does not get the theory, The theory is a lightning spark (when Earth was still forming) created hydrogen-rich molecules that turned into the first cell. Another theory is that RNA was the building block of life [1]. I stated that evidence of life on Mars was coming in almost daily, but I did not state that none of them could be hoaxes. The WOW signal was only picked up by one of the detectors because they may have not been on the same frequency. And yes, of COURSE there would only be one signal like this for 50 years. The closest habitable planet is 12 light years away, which means that if a radio signal traveled from there, it would take 12 years to get here. If a radio signal traveled from the nearest galaxy (Andromeda) it would take about 2.8 million years to get here. Yes, theories are theories, but some are accurate. The electric spark comes from lightning in the early formation of Earth. My opponent then states something completely irrelevant to this debate. He says that if we were all placed on Pluto, we would die out. Well, duh, but it fails to pose meaning to this debate. I guess if I had to refute this, I would say that a species on Pluto would evolve differently than a species on Earth, and thus be able to adapt to Pluto like we are adapted to earth. My opponent drops that the intelligent life does not have to be in live form, and thus we can take 1/100000 out of the equation. My opponent says he "retains" 0.00001 with no evidence for his claim. He fails to take evolution into account (again). What it means is that an evolved intelligent being (equations covered in earlier parts of the full equation) would be able to and would want to communicate. Thus, 0.10 stands and 0.00001 is dismissed. Let me also point out that if given adequate time to evolve, life will very likely be intelligent (Earth and humans, for example) so the % chance that life would be intelligent is much higher than 0.00001%. Estimates range from 0% to 100%. Since Earth is our only example, it is better to take something that has evidence than no evidence. Thus, a higher number would be more reliable than a lower number. May I also point out that my opponent switched from 0.000001 to .00000000000001 in his equation, which is obviously false. Now, I will plug in the numbers to the final equation (with my opponent's qualified numbers): (5e+22)(0.027) (2.7% of the 5e+22 stars have planets that can contain life)= 1.35e+21 (1.35e+21)(0.000005) (% chance life evolves)= 6.75e+15(6.75e+15)(0.10) (Better % chance life evolves to be intelligent) = 6.75e+14(6.75+14)(0.10) (Better % chance life turns out to be able to communicate)= 6.75e+13Now, even if we take two very low numbers, it still turns out to be a [very high] whole number:5e+22 planets in the universe capable of sustaining life.(5e+22)(0.027) (% of stars that have planets that are able to contain life)= 1.35e+21(1.35e+21)(0.000005) (% chance evolution takes place)= 6.75e+15(6.75e+15)(0.000001) (% chance life turns out to be intelligent)= 6750000000(6750000000)(0.01) (lowest reasonable chance life will communicate) = 67,500,000If we divide the answer by 600,000 (which, due to the shaky circumstances, gives us breathing room) we still get 112.5 planets in the universe able to sustain life.Thus, my BoP is met. I thank my opponent for the debate! [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...