> When you posted cites that you purported were in support of your
> number, chimp.
When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?
>>
>>Can you prove the number wrong, space cadet?
>>
>
> It's a 'sci' hierarchy newsgroup, chimp. That's not how it works. YOU
> put forward claims then YOU support them. It's not everyone else's
> job to research your shit for you and disprove your silly opinions.
When did I EVER say it was other than MY estimate, space cadet?
> Assertion: The Sun is powered by angels lighting their farts.
>
> Can you PROVE that wrong, chimpshit?
Of course.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing really germane to the discussion except that Mars seems to
>>>>>>> fall within the 'habitable band' where there could be life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lots of speculation about life (particularly microbial life) on Mars
>>>>>>> and no reason to put the odds of no life where you do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Read the section titled "Possible biosignatures". Sounds like the
>>>>>>> odds are a lot higher than your opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yet another cite that doesn't support Jimp the Chimp's conclusion.
>>>>>>> I think we've discovered the problem...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes we have, you are a know-it-all, blow hard, bile spewing, bully.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How does your cites not supporting your position that you claim is
>>>>> based on them make me any of those things, much less all of them?
>>>>
>>>>How do any of my cites NOT support the position that life on Mars
>>>>is highly unlikely, space cadet?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why, because they don't, Chimp, any more than they "support the
>>> position" that magic makes everything work.
>>>
>>
>>Sure, all those links about the conditions being outside the parameters
>>for life as we know it would lead one to the conlusion that life MUST
>>exist in some shelted, special place.
>>
>
> Chimp, we've found life HERE ON EARTH in conditions that were outside
> the parameters for life as we knew them at the time. No one has said
> what your last sentence says. However, even NASA seems to be putting
> the odds a lot higher than you do since the discovery of liquid water
> (which puts you right back into those 'parameters for life' you claim
> Mars is outside of.
So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?
>>
>>And we are talking about now, not what might have been millions of
>>years ago when Mars may have had oceans.
>>
>
> Yes, we are. And yes, you're making remarkably stupid statements
> (again).
So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Blot before you short out your keyboard, Chimp.
>>>>
>>>>Wipe the spittle and drool from you chin, space cadet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The best you can manage is tu quoque? Really?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Notice that nowhere did anyone give any numeric odds of life on Mars
>>>>>>as you demanded of me, space cadet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Demanded"? I just asked. You spit out a number. I asked what it
>>>>> was based on. You cited a bunch of stuff that doesn't support your
>>>>> number. You would have embarrassed yourself less if you'd simply said
>>>>> "I pulled it out of my ass", since that's what you did.
>>>>
>>>>The number was my estimate, as requested by you, based on the available
>>>>evidence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The number is your estimate. You got that right. But it's based on
>>> nothing but your own biases.
>>>
>>
>>What you call biases I call reading the literature and forming an opinion.
>>
>
> Except "the literature" as you've cited it doesn't seem to support
> your pathologically opinionated view.
So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?
>
>>
>>If in your space cadet fantasies you are expecting to find life on Mars,
>>too bad.
>>
>
> Gods, but you are remarkably stupid.
So the odds of finding life on Mars is what?
> Your statement is, BY DEFINITION, a logical fallacy. Ad Hominem (tu
> quoque).
Says the wacko denier every bit as wacko as the Holocaust deniers.
--
Jim Pennino