perhaps on another planet they are baffled that some lifeforms on this planet actually think this planet is conducive to life, because by their standards it isn't at all suitable for life.
Sure, if we didn't know about lifeforms in cold/hot/rock/air it would be easy to lay on our beaches and think 'if things weren't quite like this life couldn't exist', in total ignorance of life in vastly different conditions, but we aren't ignorant of just how harsh a condition life can exist under (harsh by comparison to the certain standards we currently need). To me trying to dismiss the possibilities of the whole universe as imperfect it's as foolish and realising we can't live underwater and concluding that nothing can, since we need such perfect conditions of air and oxygen for our life as we know it to exist. A fish swims up and you suddenly realise what isn't habitable to you is habitable to life itself, and equally there was or is probably a cosmic fish out there silently refuting the silly generalization of ignorance.
odds are if it could happen once it could happen twice
It's possible, but we've never encountered life arising out of any other elements. We've never seen a silicon based lifeform or anything like that, and as far as we know it's not possible (that's why I keep saying "as far as we know"). Is it possible? Who knows, but it's not likely either way, given what we know about chemistry.
As far as "odds" go, all the estimations I've seen (for instance the one conducted by mathematician Frederick Hoyle) have been way past what is normally considered mathemetically impossible or irrelevant due to how high the unlikelihood is (I don't remember the exact number, but I'm sure you can use google if you're interested).
This is wrong, we have observed stars form.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
As far as I can tell that's only star formation theory. To my knowledge we have never actually (verifiably) observed the formation of a star.
In our galaxy alone there are 200 to 400 billion stars, many of which each have their own system of planets as does our star. That means hundreds of billions of planets, and hundreds of hundreds of billions of other celestial bodies such as moons and the like. The galaxy is also approximately 13.6 billion years old. Our galaxy is one of I believe billions or trillions, and those are only the ones we can observe. The sheer amount of chances for life that mass setting would create are incredible.
The existence of billions of planets does not increase the chances of life neccesarily, only the existence of planets capable of sustaining life increases the chances. All I'm saying is life, as we understand life, and are aware of how it can possibly form, is not very likely given what we know. Sheer numbers of planets mean nothing.
I believe we've found fossil traces of bacteria existing on mars, just one planet away. That speaks volumes; that bacteria, a base form of life is found on an immediately adjacent celestial body. This means that out of a very small sphere of possible chances we've already found "life" in a very base form, a form that could have eventually evolved into a form of as great complexity as humankind. Now, when you increase that sphere of possibility just 100 times, now encompassing 200 planets of varying positions and environments; wouldn't it seems quite likely that in just those 200 planets, a small fraction of a fraction of our single galaxy, that life of a more complex sort would exist? Quite likely indeed. Maybe not as complex as our own, but very possibly so; and when you increase the scope maybe another 100 times even more like. Still that would only cover a small fraction of our single galaxy.
However we're not sure where this bacteria came from, and last I heard it wasn't native to Mars, but came from a meteor or comet or something (it's been several years since that discovery, I dont' remember exactly).
The general makeup of this organic matter being similar to that on earth also hints that life on earth may have likely originated from outside the solar system by asteroid such as this one introducing organic matter to the planet. This further increases the chances of complex life elsewhere in the galaxy, even supports it (in that the planet this organic matter originated from must have had superb conditions [for this type of life] to be able to create it from simple base elements).
Actually, it severely limits it as far as sheer numbers go. The fact that it was similar to the organisms of earth only goes to show that it's unlikely that there are other types of life (i.e. non-carbon based lifeforms), and as far as carbon based lifeforms go, we know they're ridiculously unlikely to form even under good conditions.
This view is extremely tunnel sighted. You are assuming that life can only exist as we see it. What is to say it isn't possible for sulfur-based lifeforms to exist? There is no way for us to know what is possible, as we can only ever test with the context of the environment we are in. It is a "View From Nowhere" to make such assertions simply because of data we can see within our small realm of knowledge. The simple fact is that there are nigh-infinite possibilities, and even if the chance is small, that sheer quantity of possibilities makes it exceedingly likely that life does exist.
Didn't say it was impossible, said it was impossible given what we know about chemistry. A sulfur-based lifeform is not neccesarily a possibility. The only data we know of indicates that it is not possible, so it's more likely that there are not sulfur based lifeforms somewhere. Perhaps there is some random process that has successfully created sulfur based lifeforms elsewhere and they're very plentiful, but in our current knowledge this is not possible, so I'm inclined to believe that it's very unlikely that this occurs, rather than that it does.
Where did you get that we've never witnessed the birth of new stars? I don't remember the term for the "factories" of stars, but there are bodies of gases that we have observed stars being born in often, just as often as we've witnessed supernovas and other deaths of stars.
We have witnessed many deaths of stars, but to my knowledge there hasn't been a case where we have seen, beyond a doubt, a star forming.
Any assertion of odds regarding this subject are also "Views From Nowhere." It makes no sense to make such assertions, and then should be given no merit as they cannot be backed truly honestly. It is like saying that the odds for a marble to land in a specific place after being thrown into the air are incredibly small. Of course the odds are incredibly small for that single possibility! But there are countless other possibilities, unknown possibilities that no assertion can be made of. We simply know the marble is going to land, and no matter where it does land the odds of it landing in that spot are incredibly small. To formulate such odds and apply them in such a ludicrous way is an entirely intellectually dishonest assertion, in the case seemingly for the agenda of blindly supporting creationism.
It says nothing of creationism, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that everything happened completely spontaneously on earth. I'm just saying that it's not likely to occur elsewhere given how many random factors had to perfectly line up for it to occur here, in a place that is well suited for the type of life it produced.
Did you get the new Kull: Exile of Atlantis Anthology that just came out?
