The Instigator
MASTERY
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dtaylor971
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Opponent picks topic.

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 1 vote the winner is...
dtaylor971
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 573 times Debate No: 51173
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

MASTERY

Pro

Welcome to the debate.

This is a special debate, with special formats as follows.

FORMAT

1st round-Pro Introduce the parameters
Self-explanatory
1st round-Con Provide the possible arguments
Provide ten possible arguments for me to choose from. Do NOT try to define or explain the arguments, as I can interpret the arguments any way I wish. Anything here should only be greetings or topics. I decide which side I wish to be, IGNORE the fact that debate.org says that I'm pro. The debate topics have to be somewhat different, to prevent ten rewording of a single topic. I can change the topic you provide slightly as well for the debate to be a fun experience. At the start of round 2 I will underline and bold the confirmed topic.
2nd round-Pro Argument & selection of topic.
I will provide a confirmed topic here, define the topic and supply my arguments as necessary. My side (pro/con) will also be clearly stated here. Please cite all research and arguments. Please provide evidence for all arguments.
2nd round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.
Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.
3rd round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.
Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.
3rd round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.
Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.
4th round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.
Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.
4th round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.
Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments. Pro Conclusion & Rebuttal.
5th round-Con Conclusion & Rebuttal.
Rebut arguments and provide a conclusion in this round. No new arguments.
5th round-Con Conclusion & Rebuttal.
Rebut arguments and provide a conclusion in this round. No new arguments.

No abusive language please. The topics that con picks should not be abusive. The topic has to be debatable worldwide. "My opponent picks the topic." is only a placeholder for real topic, so you may NOT post "I am not posting any topics, therefore I win" or something along those lines. Also, please post topics that are easy to debate on both sides. Topic should not be about religion or celebrities etc.

Failure to follow the rules and format stated above results in a full 7-point forfeit to the opposing team. Argument forfeitures also result in full 7-point forfeitures.

Rule breakage will result into a full 7 point loss unless forgiven by the opponent (special conditions such as debate topic chosen by opponent can be included if opponent broke rules). Also, justified rule breakage (including forfeiture due to previous opponent forfeiture/rule breakage.) does not count as rule breakage. For example, if user1 breaks a rule first, then user1 will forfeit all points even if user2 breaks any rules after user1 does.

PLEASE READ THE FORMAT AND RULES.

To prevent multiple forfeits within a non-tight time limit or rule breakage, I have restricted this debate to people who have completed at least 3 debates. If this restriction is not useful, I will increase the debate count or enforce the elo limit for 'opponent picks topic' debates.

I hope we have a good debate.

Time limit for each argument: 3 days.
Character limit: 5000

Thank you.
dtaylor971

Con

Through PM, my opposition and I have agreed on the following topic, and on our positions.

The resolution is as follows:

That extraterrestrial beings very likely exist. I am pro. My opposition is con.
Debate Round No. 1
MASTERY

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I confirm we have agreed on our topics and positions.

Definitions
Extraterrestrial: of or from outside the earth or its atmosphere.
Likely: such as well might happen or be true; probable.
Very: Emphasize
Very Likely: For this matter; more than 90% because of the size of the universe.
Beings: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Arguments
The Drake equation.
The Drake equation is Nc = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL

N* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy
Estimates about 100 billion.
fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them
Estimates from 20% to 50%. I will take 35%.
ne number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life
1-2 I will take 1.5
fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolves
Stars that are capable of sustaining life, should have some life evolving on it. 50%.
fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolves
This is highly debatable. Estimates range from 100% to 0%, I will take 50% but it is a very high estimate.
fc is the fraction of fi that communicate
Around 10-20%, possibly around 15%
fL is fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations may survive
This estimate is taken from the expected time humans will survive on Earth. 10,000 is an good estimate. The lifetime of our solar system is estimated to be around 10 billion years. Thus the fraction is 1/1,000,000.

Multiply them together!
The answer is 1968.75 stars that have communicating civilizations on them. This equation is definitely not foolproof, but it gives some idea of how many stars that have communicating civilizations on them. Now, we are talking about beings, the species of Homo sapiens. This species is unique to Earth, and we must calculate the fraction of Homo sapiens out of the communicating civilizations that may survive. So...I add another variable.

fH is the fraction of fL that are Homo sapiens.
Since Homo sapiens are unique to Earth, as they most likely originated & traveled to the same place, called Earth, there is little likelihood of the exact species appearing on other planets. I need to prove that fH is less than 0.04571428571%. Even if humans were to exist extraterrestrially, they would exist near Earth, but we have no evidence of Homo sapiens living on other planets. So, most likely fH is 0, or, much less than that figure (0.0457...).

Thank you.

dtaylor971

Con

Please ignore my opponent's round 2 arguments. We changed the BoP to the following:

It is very likely intelligent, communicating life exists.

==c1: Size of the Universe==

The size of the universe is billions (if not infinite) of light years across. Scientist estimates suggest that there are about 1e+12 galaxies in the observable universe alone [1]. Per each galaxy, there are 1e+11.5 stars [1]. This means the amount of stars in the universe are estimated be about 1e+22 to 1e+24, which is out of our normal number zone.

Now, we must look at which stars have Earth-like planets. An official Observatory station puts the amount of stars with an earth-sized planet in the life zone at about 20% [2]. This means about 2e+23 planets are in the habitable zone of life in the universe. Take Kepler 22, for example [3]. It is in a spot where it is not too hot nor too cold for life to exist and weather can happen.

If there is 2e+23 planets in the KNOWN universe alone that can contain life, there must be higher than a 90% chance that life has existed or is existing. If my opponent states that it has to be "Homo Sapien," then there is still a higher than 90% chance that an intelligent bipedal creature has, at one point, existed. In fact, we recently found a new planet that may have a "100% chance of life [4]:"

"The chances for life on this planet are 100 percent," Steven Vogt, a UC professor of astronomy and astrophysics says. "I have almost no doubt about it."

==c2: Adding the stats==

Now, let's say that out of the 2e+23 planets that can contain life, 0.5% of it evolves [5]. Note this is the lowest estimate (estimates range from just above 0% to 100%.) Now, we have 1e+22 planets with evolving life on it. Now, if just 0.000001% of this life turns out to be intelligent, we have about 1e+15 planets with intelligent life. If just 0.0000000001% of this life can communicate, we have about 10,000 planets with communicating life. Note this is one of the lowest possible scenarios.

With the lowest possible scenarios
still coming out as over 90% chance of intelligent, communicating life existing, I feel as if I have met my BoP. The math I used is shown below:

1e+24 planets in universe
(1e+24)(.20) (20% of planets similar to Earth and can contain life)= 2e+23.
(2e+23)(0.05) (0.5% of life evolves)= 1e+22.
(1e+22)(0.0000001) (the percent chance that life turns out to be intelligent) = 1e+15.
(1e+15)(0.00000000001) (the percent chance that this life will communicate) = 10,000.

Thus, we end up with 10,000 planets with species that are smart and have the ability to communicate.

I await my opponent's arguments!

[1] http://goo.gl...

[2] http://goo.gl...

[3] http://goo.gl...

[4] http://goo.gl...
[5] http://goo.gl...


Debate Round No. 2
MASTERY

Pro

==c1: Size of the Universe==

The size of the universe is billions (if not infinite) of light years across. Scientist estimates suggest that there are about 1e+12 galaxies in the observable universe alone. Per each galaxy, there are 1e+11.5 stars. This means the amount of stars in the universe are estimated be about 1e+22 to 1e+24, which is out of our normal number zone.

Now, we must look at which stars have Earth-like planets. An official Observatory station puts the amount of stars with an earth-sized planet in the life zone at about 20%.

That article is absurdly wrong. Estimates range from 1 - 3%. Some do go up to 15%, but 20% is a VERY HIGH estimate.

http://news.softpedia.com...
http://www.dailygalaxy.com...


This means about 2e+23 planets are in the habitable zone of life in the universe. Take Kepler 22, for example [3]. It is in a spot where it is not too hot nor too cold for life to exist and weather can happen.

If there is 2e+23 planets in the KNOWN universe alone that can contain life, there must be higher than a 90% chance that life has existed or is existing. If my opponent states that it has to be "Homo Sapien," then there is still a higher than 90% chance that an intelligent bipedal creature has, at one point, existed. In fact, we recently found a new planet that may have a "100% chance of life:"

"The chances for life on this planet are 100 percent," Steven Vogt, a UC professor of astronomy and astrophysics says. "I have almost no doubt about it."

==c2: Adding the stats==

Now, let's say that out of the 2e+23 planets that can contain life, 0.5% of it evolves.

How can you simply assume 0.5% evolves? For it to evolve, there needs to be a spark such as a plant. Something can not come from nothing. For example, would a planet which can SUSTAIN live have DEFINITELY 0.5% chance of evolving life? The percentage could be as small as 0%. 0.000000000000001% is a better estimate.

Note this is the lowest estimate (estimates range from just above 0% to 100%.) Now, we have 1e+22 planets with evolving life on it. Now, if just 0.000001% of this life turns out to be intelligent, we have about 1e+15 planets with intelligent life. If just 0.0000000001% of this life can communicate, we have about 10,000 planets with communicating life. Note this is one of the lowest possible scenarios.

With the lowest possible scenarios still coming out as over 90% chance of intelligent, communicating life existing, I feel as if I have met my BoP. The math I used is shown below:

1e+24 planets in universe
(1e+24)(.20) (20% of planets similar to Earth and can contain life)= 2e+23.
(2e+23)(0.05) (0.5% of life evolves)= 1e+22.
(1e+22)(0.0000001) (the percent chance that life turns out to be intelligent) = 1e+15.
(1e+15)(0.00000000001) (the percent chance that this life will communicate) = 10,000.

Thus, we end up with 10,000 planets with species that are smart and have the ability to communicate.

Adding my updated stats together, there is less than 0.9 planets.

ARGUMENTS
All arguments for extraterrestrial life existing is very vague. There is nearly no evidence to support the claim, especially that more than 90% chance of extraterrestrial life existing. So what do we know? We only know roughly how many stars exist. We cannot be close to certain how many can sustain life and the chance of communicating and intelligent life existing. The only main piece of information we have is Earth, which isn't even sufficient evidence. Clearer fossil data is clearly needed. Would you bet $1000000000 that there is a 90% chance of extraterrestrial life existing? Of course not, sufficient evidence is not available. On the other hand if you would be much safer if you bet $1000000000 that extraterrestrial life will not exist, given the 10%, at most 20% loss chance. [1]

[1] http://physicsworld.com...;

Thank you.

dtaylor971

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments and rebuttals. 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...

Debate Round No. 3
MASTERY

Pro

My opponent states that my source is absurdly wrong... simply adjusting the stats, we can still make this into a better than 90% chance that intelligent life exists outside of Earth. ( I need characters)

Here are some more sources:

http://www.space.com...
[1] http://www.npr.org...
and "MARCY: We have actually no evidence at all of any life, even simple single-celled life. So the next generation of scientists has their work cut out for them to determine if life is actually out there, how common it is and especially whether there's any kindred spirits technologically out there." [1]

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.

I have evidence "For it to evolve, there needs to be a spark such as a plant. Something can not come from nothing.'

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, 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.

Extreme on Earth is different to extreme in the universe. Extreme temperatures, for example, might be 45 degrees Celsius, but in space that might be 5 degrees Kelvin.

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.

Fossil records are needed for determining "the fraction that a civilization can survive of the length of the star" (see argument).
ARGUMENT
You have missed one VERY important factor, that is, the fraction that a civilization can survive of the length of the star. A good estimate is 1/100000 (If we take our own planet). Now, we can apply the formula.

(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
(135)(1/100000) = 0.00135

Thank you.
dtaylor971

Con

I thank my opponent for his rebuttals.

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.

Now, to explain how we have found some evidence for life. What Marcy meant was that we do not have good irrefutable evidence. We do have some unexplained evidence and evidence of traits of life. For example, the wow signal. 35 years later, this signal from deep space still perplexes scientists [1]. It was 30x louder than background radio noise, and was artificial. It also went up and down during the 72 second span, all which point towards to extraterrestrial life trying to communicate. Not to mention that evidence for life on Mars is coming in almost daily, everything from water, a rat, to a bright light [2]. Also, Europa may contain an underwater lake that is suitable for life. Note this is all in our OWN solar system (8 planets), which means we have found evidence for life on 1/4 of planets (or their moons.) Note our solar system is about 8/60,000,000,000 planets that may contain life in the Milky Way.

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 [3] from other aliens creating us. In fact, in the early creation of Earth, even an electric spark could have logically started life [4]. 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.

Then, he states that extreme on Earth is different than extreme in the universe. He does not state evidence for his claim. We are talking about Earth-like planets, almost the same distance away from the sun, so -456F is not likely at all (a.k.a 2 degrees Kelvin.) Second, life adapts over time in evolution to better sustain to their own environment. So a cell surviving in 200F waters could be the same as a cell on another planet surviving in 700F waters (even though it is not likely that such high temp would happen). That's your own logic, isn't it?

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) = 1.35

Now, 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% [4]. 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) = 135,000

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!


[1] http://www.universetoday.com...
[2] http://www.space.com...
[3] http://www.nasa.gov...
[4] http://www.newrealities.com...
Debate Round No. 4
MASTERY

Pro

Firstly, I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

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) = 1.35

Now, 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) = 135,000

So, 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) = 000000000000000000.1
Thus, 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.




Conclusion
I 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.
dtaylor971

Con

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+13

Now, 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) = 67,500,000

If 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...

Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
Oops. In the last round, switch "able to sustain life" to "planets that have intelligent, communicating creatures on them."
Posted by MASTERY 2 years ago
MASTERY
That's good :).
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
I was running ahead of schedule.
Posted by MASTERY 2 years ago
MASTERY
Ok, sure.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
Will post in about a day.
Posted by MASTERY 2 years ago
MASTERY
http://www.fennzart.com...
http://www.activemind.com...

(sites, sorry forgot to add in argument)
Posted by MASTERY 2 years ago
MASTERY
Will post in half a day.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
MASTERYdtaylor971Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Tying conduct, S&G, and sources, as neither side did significantly better than the other in any of them. Arguments to Con because he established why many of the variables of the Drake Equation favor the existence of extraterrestrial beings, provided all the calculations necessary to show that the mathematics support his case, and accurately rebutted Pro's critiques of his sources. Good job to both sides! It was an interesting read.