The Instigator
UnStupendousMan
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
gordonjames
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

It is Probable that Europa Supports Life

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
gordonjames
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,857 times Debate No: 35143
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

UnStupendousMan

Pro

Full Resolution: It is Probable that Europa Supports Living Organisms

Definitions:

-Europa: Sixth-closest moon of Jupiter, smallest of the Galilean satellites, discovered by Galileo Galilei in 1610 http://en.wikipedia.org...(moon)
-Probable: likely to occur or proven true:http://dictionary.reference.com...
-Supports: to maintain by supplying with things necesary to existence http://dictionary.reference.com...
-Living: to have life, as an organism; be capable of vital functions http://dictionary.reference.com...
-Organism: a discrete and complete living thing, such as animal, plant, fungus, or microorganism http://en.wiktionary.org...

Rules, etc.:

-4 Rounds
-1 Month Voting Period
-72 Hours to argue
-8,000 characters max
-4,000 characters min
-Vote Comments enabled
-No Semantics
-No Incivility
-No Trolling
-1 skipped round is loss of conduct, 2 skipped rounds is loss of debate
-Shared BOP; in other words, both sides have to prove their case, not just attack the other's
-In line citations [1] would be appreciated.
-First round is for acceptance and definition of terms only
And so forth.

I look forward to the start of the debate; I hope to be a worthy opponent.

May the best debater win.

[1] Like this
gordonjames

Con

Pro states that "It is Probable that Europa Supports Life."
Pro gives the following definitions, one of which I would like to clarify.

-Probable: likely to occur or proven true
-Supports: to maintain by supplying with things necessary to existence
-Living: to have life, as an organism; be capable of vital functions
-Organism: a discrete and complete living thing, such as animal, plant, fungus, or microorganism

- Probable - more than 50% probability is hard to measure as this is not a repeatable event. To make the debate more enjoyable I hope he allows me to phrase his statement as "We will find life on Europa." That way we can avoid questions of "it was probable but we didn"t find it" or "it was unlikely, even if it was found."
As a side note; if we do find life on Europa it will be either native to Europa (giving evidence for spontaneous generation of life) or transplanted from somewhere else (Earth or extraterrestrial) giving rise to questions beyond our current imagining.

I have a few thoughts pre debate that I want to throw out.

1. Most of our assumptions of life are so based on organic chemistry at standard temperature and pressure (STP) that we may miss a great deal because of these narrow assumptions. With that said, the claim of Europa possibly hosting "life as we know it" are based on this unproven assumption. If, however, we reject that assumption there is no reason to choose Europa over any other site so this debate needs to focus on organic chemistry at STP.

2. So far as we know, life is unique to Earth. Looking at probabilities around a unique event makes PROs position difficult. As far as we know life only exists on earth.

Some interesting reading

http://news.discovery.com...
http://www.gogonews.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...(moon)#Potential_for_extraterrestrial_life
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
http://www.universetoday.com...

I will wait for PRO to post round 2 before beginning my arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
UnStupendousMan

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting my debate, and I apologize for the shortness and crudeness of my case. If voters wish to deduct a conduct point for this, the voters may.

Before we begin, I must mention that life (as we know it) requires several things before it can flourish: liquid water, energy, protection from radiation, carbon and oxygen. [1] I contend that Europa has all of the things listed above, can create an environment that is hospitable for life, and can have a means of abiogenisis, so that is more likely than not to have life in its oceans, in affirmation of the resolution.

Liquid Water
Water is one of the, if not the most, important ingredients for life, acting as a solvent so that the metabolic processes of life can occur. [2] There is general consensus among scientists that Europa harbors a vast hidden ocean, more voluminous than all of Earth's ocean's combined, under its (literally) icy surface. Several observations strongly support this hypothesis: Europa's surface is young, smooth, and has remarkably little cratering. [3] This insinuates that forces are keeping the surface of the planet in constant motion, something like an ocean. In addition, magnesium, an element which is not blown Europa's way by means of Io's volcanos, has been found on the surface of the planet, which points to the magnesium coming from the ocean beneath. [12] The explaination for the ocean goes like this: Europa is in a slightly elliptical orbit and in orbital resonance with two other Galilean satellites--Io and Ganymede--means that tidal flexing can knead the insides of the planet, creating an environment fit for liquid water, and can possibly generate some geologic activity, like the hydrothermal vents in the depths of Earth's oceans. [3,4]

Protection From Radiation
Radiation tends to rent the biological mechanisms of life asunder, and Jupiter is the second greatest producer of radiation in the solar system, aside from the sun. [5] Europa is a close orbiter of the gas giant, bearing the full brunt of Jupiter's deluge--5400 mSv per day. However, estimations for the thickness of Europa's icy crust are at thinnest a few kilometers thick, which is more than enough to block any and all radiation coming from its parent planet. [3]

Energy
No ecosystem can exist without some sort of energy coming in form outside; on Earth, most food chains are powered on radiation from the Sun. [1] On Europa, farther away and wreathed in a thick layer of ice to boot, must have a different energy system in order for living things to grow there. There may be an alternate energy source for Europan ecosystems: Due to the fact that, as discussed before, that Europa undergoes tidal flexing and could have some geologic activity, it can form hydrothermal vents. The chemical and thermal energy that the vents could provide could be the start of a chemosynthesis-based food web similar to that of independent deep-sea ecosystems around black smokers. [4]

Oxygen
While there are some organisms which do not require oxygen to live, most of the organisms here on earth do need it. [1] There are multiple ways that life on Europa could gain access to molecular oxygen. Molecular oxygen, formed through radiolysis, makes up the vast majority of Europa's tenuous atmosphere. [3] However, some of the oxygen doesn't go into the atmosphere, and instead goes into the moon's subsurface ocean, providing oxygen to whatever lives in Europa's depths. [3] In addition, hydrogen peroxide has been detected on the surface of the planet, and if and when the hydrogen peroxide could find its way down into Europa's ocean, then it could also be an important factor in energy and in oxidation. [6]

Carbon
Carbon is considered to be the building block of all life on Earth, a vital part of the macromolecules of life. [7] Carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons were detected by the Galileo spacecraft when it was still operational, meaning that there is a source of carbon on the moon. [8] In addition, being a moon that orbits Jupiter, a planet known as the "solar system's vacuum cleaner," [4] Europa is likely to be subject to large amounts of asteroid impacts, some of them being the type of asteroids that contain organic molecules. While this is certainly not the main supply of carbon on the moon, it could certainly be a small aid to the content of organic molecules, and could play a part of the abiogenisis process.

Abiogenisis
How abiogenisis occurs is poorly understood, so caution should be present when discussing it. However, if we are relying on the hypothesis that life on Europa is going to form the hydrothermal vents in the depths of the moon's ocean, then whatever caused abiogenisis in Earth's hydrothermal vents could also be the means of abiogenisis on Europa.

Conclusion:
On Earth, life exists in some extreme places. It exists in the darkest depths of the sea [4], the hot springs of Yellowstone [9], and even in the clouds above our heads [10]. I have shown that Europa has displayed qualities that indicate that it is favorable for life to form, and there is a means for abiogenisis, compared to the places life has been on this earth, would it be any stranger to find life--even if it was just bacteria or archea--on Europa?

I await the rebuttal from my opponent.

Sources:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://solarsystem.nasa.gov...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[9] http://www.scientificamerican.com...
[10] http://www.livescience.com...
[11] http://keckobservatory.org...
gordonjames

Con

Pro has presented his argument that there are places on Europa where earth organisms might be able to live. He bases this on the idea that “life (as we know it) requires several things before it can flourish: liquid water, energy, protection from radiation, carbon and oxygen.”

I agree whole heartedly with these things, and I believe that there mat be earth organisms that might live in the harsh and low energy environment of Europa.

Then Pro makes several statements that are completely unfounded

Pro states : “Europa . . . . can create an environment that is hospitable for life”

To the best of our knowledge there is nothing on Europa that is hospitable. We would call it a hostile environment. In the case of earth, even our hostile environments are likely to have living creatures adapt to the harsh conditions because they can slowly adapt to those conditions while living in the less harsh area near by.

Pro states : “can have a means of abiogenisis, so that is more likely than not to have life in its oceans” (spelling error in original)

This statement is interesting for two reasons.
1. It presumes that abiogenesis (life spontaneously arising from non living matter). This is one of the major issues in this debate. You can not presume it to be fact. (Or even a theory with evidence. The evidence is we have life on earth. We have no clue how it began. (Theists like myself will say God did it, but we have no idea of the mechanism.)

2. After presuming abiogenesis, Pro then presumes that Europa is “more likely than not to have life in its oceans”. This can not be presumed, it is the point of the debate.



I want to state my reasons why I believe we are unlikely to find any life on Europa.

1. Lack of solar energy.
Europa is too far from the sun to have the amount of solar energy that we believe is needed for life as we know it.

One of the top theorists on extraterrestrial life, Christopher F. Chyba1, states that “Jupiter's moon Europa may harbour a subsurface water ocean, but estimates of the available free energy have not been encouraging for supporting life.
- http://www.nature.com...

In response to this some have postulated tidal energy (gravity based) or charged particles accelerated in Jupiter's magnetosphere might provide “enough organic and oxidant molecules to fuel a substantial Europan biosphere”

The problem with these attempts to find in these processes a source of energy we might hope would lead to life is that every theory of abiogenesis I have read postulates a highly energetic (lightening, volcanoes, unshielded solar radiation and more) environment. Even those who favor theories of abiogenesis have done their research in highly energetic environments rich in chemical precursors to organic molecules. http://www.nature.com...


2. We have no evidence of life on Europa.
We have evidence of water, liquid under a solid crust; oxygen and carbon. We believe these to be necessary for life, but we have no proof, or even evidence of life.
We have hope. It would be so cool to find life outside earth.



PRO states “I have shown that Europa has displayed qualities that indicate that it is favorable for life to form, and there is a means for abiogenisis, compared to the places life has been on this earth, would it be any stranger to find life--even if it was just bacteria or archea--on Europa?” (Spelling error in original)

Tet me respond to his closing statement.

1. “Europa has displayed qualities that indicate that it is favorable for life to form”
We have no knowledge of any process by which life forms from dead matter. How can you say favorable for life to form. This is a guess at best. We don’t know what conditions might cause life to form by natural processes, if any.

2. “there is a means for abiogenisis” (spelling error in original)
What is the means? On thing most researchers are quite certain of is that there is insufficient solar energy for life as we know it. Even on earth around hydrothermal vents nutrients from “marine snow” (organic matter falling from the ocean above) are a part of the food chain providing complex organic molecules and trace elements.

3. “compared to the places life has been on this earth, would it be any stranger to find life--even if it was just bacteria or archea--on Europa?” That is the debate. We know we have life on earth. We know of no other place in the universe with life. We find in Europa a place less hostile to life than say Jupiter, but so far there is no evidence of life on Europa, but it is an intriguing possibility.


Thanks to pro for his many references to conditions for life on earth, ands water, carbon and oxygen on Europa. Those were not really the purpose of the debate. The BOP os on Pro to give evidence for life on Europa. He showed that some earth organisms might survive if transported to Europa, but there is no evidence for native life on Europa.
Debate Round No. 2
UnStupendousMan

Pro

I thank my opponent for responding.

Responses to criticisms:

Con states: "To the best of our knowledge, there is nothing on Europa that is hospitable. We would call it a hostile environment."

Hostle to an unprotected human, maybe, but not to an organism that would be adapted to such an environment; but its hostile to us like the various habitats of extremophiles are hostile. An organism that would have developed on Europa would be inherently adapted to its habitat. If Europa has the things that I said are necessary for survival of lifeforms (a source of liquid water, protection from radiation, and enough energy, oxygen, and carbon for the moon to be hospitable), then Europa is hospitable for life. My opponent may, can, and will attack my points supporting this statement, but he must attack one of the statements supporting my assertion before attacking the assertion itself, otherwise, my statment stands. (To be fair, he does attack the statement that there is enough energy for Europa to support life later in his case.)

Con states that I presume abiogenesis.

Okay, maybe I didn't support my statement adequetly. However, due to the fact that things tend to begin in this universe, I felt like it was necessary to say that it was probable that there was a pathway for life to begin on Europa, in order to say that, in couplation with my statement that Europa is hospitable to life, that it was probable that life existed on Europa. If Europa didn't have a means for life to begin, it could be the most life-benevolent place in the galaxy (not saying that it is), it would be sterile.

Con states that, due to Europa's distance from the sun, Europa doesn't have enough energy to support life

It is true that Europa is too far away for a photosynthesis-based ecosystem, and, according to Con's source, the energy available on Europa isn't conducive to produce organisms the size of a blue whale. Despite that, Con's own source says that it is plausible that microbial life could exist. Furthermore, the means of abiogenesis that would occur on Europa would happen to have hydrothermal vents in the process somewhere--basically, volcanoes, which is a method Con states that .

Con states that we have no evidence of life on Europa, there is no life on Europa

While the lack of evidence of life makes us utilize words like "definite" less often than not, lack of evidence doen't mean evidence of lacking. Keep in mind that we haven't explored Europa like we have explored, say, Mars.

(But it would be cool if we found life on Europa. Life-changing, actually. It would probably be one of the most major events in modern human history, comparable to landing on the moon. It would have deep scientific and philosophical impacts for us to answer... but that's a discussion and debate for another time.)

Responding to Con's response to my first round closing statement:

1. What I was saying is that there is liquid water, protection from radiation, and enough oxygen, carbon, and energy for life to exist. You can contest any of those points, but saying "Europa doesn't have a means for abiogenesis," doesn't necessarily mean that

2. The means of abiogenesis are by hydrothermal vents driven by tidal flexing. While the vents may not be detectable given our current level of exploration of Europa, and not as active as Io's glut of volcanos (also driven by tidal flexing). But, Io and Europa have similar orbital eccentricities, and orbiting speeds, and a roughly 1:2 ratio in orbital periods[1,2]; Europa most probably has 1/2 the energy pumped into it by tidal flexing as Io, the solar system's most geologically active celestial body.[2] Discovering geolgoic activity on Europa, while I don't want to say inevitable, is very close to certain.

Also of note: while marine snow is a part of hydrothermal vents' ecosystems, the dependence on the snow is a pittance compared to the amount of energy dependent on chemosmosis--the density of life around hydrothermal vents is at least 10,000 times greater than of the surrounding sea floor, which is dependent on the snow. [3]

3. We do not have any definitive proof that there is life elsewhere in the universe, but due to the factors that I have described, it is more probable than not that life exists there.

Reconsidering the Resolution

I understand that, outside Earth, we have detected no life. Nothing. To create a debate so that a side must provide evidence that life exists elsewhere in the universe would be folly, so that's the way I worded the resolution the way I did. So that there would be something to debate.

I look forward to my opponent's response.

Sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
gordonjames

Con

The full resolution is . . .
Full Resolution: It is Probable that Europa Supports Living Organisms

Let me try to get our debate back onto the resolution.

1. There is currently no evidence of life on Europa. [1]

2. What we know or presume of Europa give a very small range of isolated locations that could be habitats for the most extremes forms of earth life. [2] The problem with this is that extreme environments on earth are inhabited, in part, by organisms similar to their less extreme cousins. These populations were like transplanted to their extreme locations through geological changes rather than biogenesis of new life in the extreme location.

3. Sustaining life requires a complete biosphere. We have no evidence of life from energy gradients with no dependance on other life forms. Organisms called extremophiles on earth live in “physical extremes, e.g. temperature, radiation, pressure, and geochemical extreme, for example desiccation, salinity, pH, depletion of oxygen or extreme redox potential”. [3] Wile it is possible that there might be environments on Europa that might not be instantly deadly to all earth life, it is a far stretch of probability and imagination that there is a complete biosphere on Europa.

Remember the resolution?
“It is Probable that Europa Supports Living Organisms”

This is not a debate about a possibility that it could support life. (Which is also doubtful)
The claim is that it is probable that life already exists on Europa.
Pro has the BOP to show evidence that life is likely.
He has not done this.

Here are reasons why it is difficult to claim “Europa Supports Living Organisms”

1. There is not enough atmosphere around Europa to limit hard radiation. This makes life in the surface life unlikely. The thin ( 10^-12 bar) atmosphere is mostly molecular oxygen (which is highly toxic and explosive)

2. Europa it too far from the sun for solar energy to drive processes like photosynthesis. This makes life below the ice unlikely.

3. Europa is primarily made of silicate rock and probably has an iron core. [1] compared to Earth which is composed of iron (32.1%), oxygen (30.1%), silicon (15.1%), magnesium (13.9%), sulfur (2.9%), nickel (1.8%), calcium (1.5%), and aluminium (1.4%); with the remaining 1.2% consisting of trace amounts of other elements. [4] As far as we know there are too few resources to support the chemistry of life.

4. Europa has an induced magnetic field through interaction with Jupiter's, which suggests the presence of a subsurface conductive layer. Some suggest that the liquid water is salty. This should not be confused with our oceans. This presumption has no evidence. Salts are ionic compounds that result from the neutralization reaction of an acid and a base [5] and the conductive layer could also be combinations of arsenic salts in a pH 14 solution.

5. There may be very little liquid water. There are two models of Europa’s subsurface ocean. [1] One of these has models has a solid ice surface (-260 °F) and the possibility of liquid water beneath. The other model has “cold brittle surface ice” and a lower layer of “warm convecting ice” that may be at temperatures below -100 °F for the first 10 km with only a small layer of liquid water near the rocky interior.

These five issues make it unlikely that Europa could even support life as we know it.

There is no known process by which life can form from nonliving chemicals.
Added to this unlikely situation is the claim PRO is making that life originated on Europa. The word abiogenesis means that life arose from non living chemical processes. There is absolutely no known process by which life can form from nonliving chemicals.

Pro claims that liquid water, protection from radiation, oxygen, carbon, and energy exist on Europa. This may be true but the only thing we are certain of is that we do not yet have enough information. After several more NASA missions we may have evidence of organic molecules (carbon based chemistry), depth of water, what chemicals are dissolved in the water and much more. SO far we have hopes, dreams and questions.

What we do know of the chemistry is that the surface is toxic to life as we know it. Hydrogen peroxide is created on Europa due to the intense radiation bombardment of the moon's surface as it moves through Jupiter's powerful magnetic field. [6] This seems to be the nature of the whole surface of Europa.

There are so many guesses about life across the solar system. [7] This list includes Enceladus, Mars, Titan, Europa, Venus, Callisto and Ganymede of Jupiter. The possibility of extraterrestrial life is exciting, but there is no good reason to pretend it exists on Europa. So far as we know, Earth is the only place where life as we know it, exists.


Let me respond to some of PROs statements.

1. When I challenged that PRO presumes abiogenesis he responds with “maybe I didn't support my statement adequetly”. (spelling of original) I agree that PRO gave no support for the concept of abiogenesis in rounds 1 through 3. This is a major part of his argument with no evidence. Then PRO states “due to the fact that things tend to begin in this universe”. Actually, death is the constant in the universe, with life being an anomaly found only on earth.

2. PRO is confused about the BOP.
He states “but saying "Europa doesn't have a means for abiogenesis," doesn't necessarily mean that” . . .
I do not need to prove the negative that Europa does not have life.
PRO needs to prove “It is Probable that Europa Supports Living Organisms

3. PRO states “The means of abiogenesis are by hydrothermal vents driven by tidal flexing.”
Hydrothermal vents (no evidence of their existence) or even volcanoes on the rocky “ocean floor” (no evidence of their existence either) only show that there is a source of heat energy. The presence of heat energy (if it were actually found) is a far stretch of the imagination from generating life from dead chemicals.

4. PRO states “We do not have any definitive proof that there is life elsewhere in the universe”
Actually, we have ZERO evidence of life anywhere but earth. It would be exciting to find life elsewhere. I hope we find life elsewhere. So far, however, there is no evidence of life outside earth. Europa has liquid water but it is not a “goldilocks zone” planet where we think life is probable. [8] It is hostile to life as we know it, and there is zero evidence of life.

To date we have found three “goldilocks planets” [9] Even here there are no scientists who would yet say “it is probable they support living organisms”. These are simply our guesses at “most likely”, and Europa is no where near as likely as these.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(moon)
[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[3] http://eduep.uepb.edu.br...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...(chemistry)
[6] http://www.space.com...
[7] http://www.space.com...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
UnStupendousMan

Pro

UnStupendousMan forfeited this round.
gordonjames

Con

In the absence of PRO posting a round 4 I want to add a few more thoughts on the unlikely prospect of life originating on Europa.

1. Recent evidence suggests that the ocean of Europa are too reactive to easily generate long chain organic molecules. This includes acids and other reductants.

http://www.space.com...


check out this quote . . .
“The oxidants on Europa's surface are likely carried downward in potentially substantial quantities by the same churning that causes water to rise from below. Oxidants could be of great use to any life in Europa's ocean — for example, oxygen was pivotal to how complex life evolved on Earth.

However, oxidants from Europa's surface might react with sulfides and other compounds in its ocean before life could nab it, generating sulfuric and other acids, investigators said. If this has occurred for just about half of Europa's lifetime, not only would such a process rob the ocean of life-supporting oxidants, but it could become relatively corrosive, with a pH of about 2.6 — "about the same as your average soft drink," Pasek said.

This level of acidity would be a significant challenge for life, unless organisms were to consume or sequester oxidants fast enough to ameliorate the acidification, researchers said. The ecosystem would need to evolve quickly to meet this crisis, with oxygen metabolisms and acid tolerance developing in only about 50 million years to handle the acidification.”

2. The surface temperature is around -260 Fahrenheit
Between the lack of solar energy and the crazy cold temperature the basic chemistry of life is unlikely.

Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Sower4GS 3 years ago
Sower4GS
Here I will repeat myself.

HI!

Gen 1:26 And Elohim said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness,

There are no other accounts of the Creation of Intelligent life in Scripture, and if is not in scripture it is not inspired by YHWH.

That means anytime we try to make a decision of any kind and not base it on the Books from Genesis to Revelation we fail. Miserably.

Of course if you listen to me you might become enlightened, for I testify only of Scripture, so don't listen to me if you want to do Things YOUR way and not your Creator's, who is YHWH and One with the Messiah.

Have a nice Day!

Shalom.

My comment on the other Debate about ET on Mars was the 7th comment.

This one was the 8th.

In Scripture 7 means perfection.
8 means completion.
Did I plan it that way, will some could say I waited until six comments were made and then posted the seventh, No I did not. Of course few will believe me.
But this next fact will fry your noodle.

How could I have possibly planned to post on the eight comment here because as you will note I answered this one immediately after the Other one.

It would be impossible for me to plan that.

Coincidence? Naaa.
Posted by UnStupendousMan 3 years ago
UnStupendousMan
I apologize for turning in an argument late. A lot's been happening in my life, and I haven't been able to focus on this. That's no excuse, of course, but it's an explanation.
Posted by UnStupendousMan 3 years ago
UnStupendousMan
Hmm. I'm going to consider changing the BOP; having the BOP I have in this debate has been my status quo for debates for...as long as I've been here. I guess it's just a reflex at this point.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
No worries.

I'd accept this if it had a different BoP. As my case would center around the problems inherent in our level of ignorance regarding abiogenesis and its likelihood even under the best circumstances, my case would be that trying to say whether it's more probable than not is impossible.
Posted by UnStupendousMan 3 years ago
UnStupendousMan
Yes. According to my position, it is probable.

I apologize if my definitions and resolution made my case unclear.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
And you're saying that it's more likely than not, correct?
Posted by UnStupendousMan 3 years ago
UnStupendousMan
@Bladerunner: The former
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Are you saying that it is probable life exists on Europa, or that it could support life if, say, we brought some there?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
UnStupendousMangordonjamesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Abiogenesis occurred on earth, whether at the behest of God or not, so there is a mechanism by which it occurs although we don't know for sure what the mechanism is. "Supports life" could means that it would sustain imported organisms, but the debate defined it to "originate and currently sustains." Pro had to argue that the specific conditions for abiogenesis probably occurred. Abiogenesis occured rather quickly on earth despite a harsh environment, but the cold environment of Europa seems much less conducive. Pro need a lot of expert opinion to support it being probable, and he didn't have that.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
UnStupendousMangordonjamesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: First off, in a debate about probability, "There Is No Evidence" has no place. Since there's no evidence either way, we can only assume probability from what we do know, and that's where Con slipped. Rather than debating probability, he begged for evidence of certainty. Conduct for FF and poorness of R1.