a reply to: Needalight
As a matter of fact, I do and you're the one that are being ignorant. Allow me to show you why.
Here go a few facts that refute the existence of life outside of Earth (incoming wall of text):
FACT #1: Based on our fastest capable speeds it would take 70,000 years to reach the nearest solar system. Even if we went at a fraction of that speed
and collided with a small rock on the way the ship would be utterly destroyed. And the probability of life in any one solar system is so
astronomically remote, the nearest system would not be merely 70,000 years away but at best billions of years away and more likely trillions of years
away. So even if life did exist on another planet, it's irrelevant.
FACT #2: Even if an alien race existed they would still need a cause as well, and on and on, but infinite regress is impossible, because if there was
an eternity of the past of cause and effects, we would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Moreover, we would not have existed,
because an eternity would still be going on before it could every reach this point. Infinite regress is not only proven false on both accounts but
FACT #3: There have not been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe for life to exist on another planet. Science doesn't know
what life is and can't explain how life arose from the chaos of an explosion that sterilized the entire cosmos a trillion times over. "Natural
selection" is no help. It can neither create life nor assist the first living thing to start functioning. The first living cell would have had to
come about by pure chance. But this is mathematically impossible--and there is no arguing with mathematics.
There are approximately 10^80 atoms in the cosmos. Assuming 10^12 interatomic interactions per second per atom, and 10^18 seconds (30 billion years)
as twice the evolutionists' age of the universe, we get 10^110 (80 +12+18) as the total number of possible interatomic interactions in 30 billion
If each interatomic interaction produced a unique molecule, then no more than 10^110 unique molecules could have ever existed in the universe. About
1,000 protein molecules composed of amino acids are needed for the most primitive form of life. To find a proper sequence of 200 amino acids for a
relatively short protein molecule has been calculated to require "about 10^130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the total number of
molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos! No random process could ever result in even one such protein structure, much less the full set
of roughly 1000 needed in the simplest form of life.
"It is therefore sheer irrationality...to believe that random chemical interactions could ever [form] a viable set of functional proteins out of the
truly staggering number of candidate possibilities. In the face of such stunningly unfavourable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of
honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we see in living systems? To do so with conscious awareness of these
numbers, in my opinion, represents a serious breach of scientific integrity" (John R. Baumgardener, Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National
Laboratory. See In Six Days, pp. 224-25).
Donald Page, an eminent cosmologist, calculated the odds of the universe existing 10(10^1240). Remember, the simplest physical structure upon which
natural selection might operate must happen by chance--and it can't.
When anyone says that an eye, for example, couldn't happen by chance, Dawkins responds in an offended tone, "Well, of course an eye couldn't happen
by chance! Natural selection is the very opposite of chance!" But Dawkins doesn't mention that natural selection is impossible without some living
thing that can replicate itself.
This are the main reasons why I don't believe in life outside of Earth, not because there's no proof, but because it's illogical.