Opponent picks topic.

Rebuttal My opponent states that we have no evidence at all for extraterrestrial life, which is false. However, his source was Professor Marcy from California explaining that 40 billion planets are in the habitable life zone. He states that the number is loose, and it could be oversold. Your other source states that 60 billion planets in the Milky Way alone could support life, which is pretty much my argument. Exactly. Apply 50 billion to the start and don't include the possible life %. Now, to explain how we . .. life in the Milky Way. Firstly, water itself is not a spark. Water is H2O, which is just hydrogen and oxygen atoms. How can that spark life? And the rat? It's probably a fabricated image or a mouse taken from Earth, as shown in your own article. You cannot simply assume 1/4 of our solar system has life and then show many planets are in the solar system. I could take only Earth and say 1/1 planets have life and then assume 60,000,000,000 planets have life, which is obviously false. Also, the Wow! signal was ONLY picked up by ONE of the detectors of the two, which were scanning the same part of the sky. The Wow! signal is probably fake. Even if it was true, it wouldn't be extraterrestrial life. ONLY ONE signal like this for 50 years? My opponent goes on to state that for something to evolve, there needs to be a plant. We have not proven this, as there are a variety of theories from life from a meteorite on Mars from other aliens creating us. In fact, in the early creation of Earth, even an electric spark could have logically started life. A lot of theories state that hydrogen-rich molecules were the basis of life. All of these could make a single cell, easily. Thus, your % chance of evolution is very low. Also, I have already successfully put your chances of evolution into my equation and easily made it work, still with low numbers. You have yet to refute that. And theories are theories, right? They aren't accurate. And, where does the electric spark come from? Then, he states. .. Although humans can adapt, imagine we were all placed into Pluto. Would we have time to adapt? NO, the species would be extinct before it adapts. To refute my opponent's next statement, all I have to do is explain the wording of the resolution. It states that intelligent life "exists. " Nowhere does it state that it has to exist in live form. It could exist in fossilized form, decayed form, etc. In fact, the wording of the resolution allows it to exist in completely decayed form, such as simple dirt. Even if this is false, I can still easily fit this into my equation:(1e+24)(0.027= (2.7e+22)(2.7e+22)(0.000005) = 1.35e+17(1.35e+17)(0.000001) = 135000000000(135000000000)(0.000001)= 135,000(135)(1/100000) = 1.35Now, I would like to explain just how unlikely my numbers in my equation are. I have refuted the evolution part. But, I have not explained the communication part. The % of intelligent life that would be able to communicate and have the desire and means to is about 10-20%. My equation puts it at just 0.0000001, which is significantly lower than the lowest estimate. With the lowest estimate, these are the results (from the equation above):(1e+24)(0.027= (2.7e+22)(2.7e+22)(0.000005) = 1.35e+17(1.35e+17)(0.000001) = 135000000000(135000000000)(0.10)= 13500000000(13500000000)(1/100000) = 135,000So, 10-20% of life communicate? No way. A cell communicating? No. I retain 0.000001. So even with taking in my opponent's easily-refuted low statistics, we still end up with 135,000 planets that are both intelligent and have the ability to communicate (and will communicate. ) I thank you for reading, and eagerly await my opponent's response! _----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I will repeat the equation. 50,000,000,000 planets in universe capable of sustaining life. (50,000,000,000)(0.000005) = 250000(250000)(0.000001) (the percent chance that life turns out to be intelligent) = 0.01(0.01)(0.00000000001) (the percent chance that this life will communicate) = 0000000000000.1. And, (0.01)(1/100000) = 000000000000000000.1Thus, we end up with 000000000000000000.1 planets with species that are smart and have the ability to communicate Even if I increase the chances massively, like change the % that will communicate to 0.1, the equation answer will STILL be below 0.9. ConclusionI believe the equation says it all. There is an agreed number of planets capable of sustaining life. For the number that will evolve, a spark is needed. And, there is also a very small chance life will become intelligent (unlike ants etc. ) and also a very small chance the species will communicate. Thank you.