The lamestream media told you:
“There are now so many stars known to exist in the universe, there simply must be life out there somewhere, in addition to our own... scientists have reported that there are three times as many stars as they previously thought.”
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
This prognosticating groundless editorial, placed in the “news” section of papers around the nation late last year is so so bad, I'll have to pick it apart piece by piece.
Whether life exists in the universe in addition to us is anyone's guess, but it's only a 100% guess -- there is absolutely zero objective or observable support either way. This article demonstrates that when facts get in the way of an exciting story, facts are simply ignored up and down the entire "news" media chain of command. Maybe we're alone, maybe not. Too much "news" has become idle supposition, and the masses have practically lost the ability to distinguish between the two.
Seth Borenstein, writing for the AP, tells us:
“WASHINGTON - Lately, a handful of new discoveries make it seem more likely that we are not alone, that there is life somewhere else in the universe.”
--No discoveries of life have been made in any way -- this is pure conjecture, also known as imagination. Only "scientific" statistical projections have changed, based on newly discarded old "flawed" estimates.
“The evidence is just getting stronger and stronger," said Carl Pilcher, director of NASA's Astrobiology Institute, which studies the origins, evolution and possibilities of life in the universe.”
--The evidence can't be getting stronger, because there is zero evidence, which the reporter failed to note, or to correct for his NASA source. This tax-funded NASA functionary cannot possibly be studying the origins and evolution of life in the universe where none is known to exist, unless he is studying us.
"I think anybody looking at this evidence is going to say, 'There's got to be life out there.'”
--If he thinks anybody would agree, well, he doesn't get out much. It's a free country, he's free to say that, but he blatantly demonstrates his abject lack of objectivity, since there is no evidence of life of any kind, and many people would indeed question his hypothetical statement.
Don't get me wrong, there may be life out there, anyone can conjecture that. But there are only statistical theories, probabilities and hopeful guessing, nothing more. Many people, including many bona fide scientists evaluating the numbers game, say the chances of life out there are unlikely. None of these were quoted by this “reporter.” Yes, life "may" be out there. No one knows, evidence remains absent and the search continues, fruitlessly so far.
“Scientists have an equation that calculates the odds of civilized life on another planet. But much of it includes factors that are pure guesswork on less-than-astronomical factors... Stripped to its simplistic core, with the requirement for intelligence and civilization removed, the calculations hinge on two basic factors: How many places out there can support life? And how hard is it for life to take root?”
--This invented equation omits the most important question:
How long does it take for life to develop on a planet in the known universe?
We DO have an answer for this, but since it amounts to hard evidence it is completely ignored by the wishful thinkers at NASA, the AP, the school system and most of the ignorant masses. Let's hold the biblical model aside despite its enormous popularity, and use the Big Bang model currently preferred by the science community. It took Earth about nine billion years to form, and then about four billion more to reach its current state.
So for the ONLY model we have to work from, it takes 13 billion years for a universe like ours to develop one life-bearing planet. There is NO postulate of any kind suggesting we are slow, or the rest of the universe is faster. Arguing solely from known facts, we could easily be the first planet with life of any kind. If the Earth model says anything about life, it begins in a single spot and then spreads. Why the universe might be immune to this principle has no scientific support (or inquiry for that matter) of any kind. If true, that makes us pretty special -- we are the harbingers of life for the universe, the very first to arrive, and we are only now beginning to work on spreading.
The entirely valid yet hopelessly ignored question of where did life first begin, and when, is confounded by Einstein's discovery that -- simultaneity at great distances is indeterminable -- and if you could understand that statement, maybe we'll discuss that little kernel some other time. (Because of the limit of light speed, there's no way, as far as we can currently tell, to determine who may have been first.)
“That means the probability for alien life is higher than ever before, agree 10 scientists interviewed by the Associated Press.”
--Not even a smokescreen of impartiality exists, with the reporter unabashedly admitting he found no one to discuss any alternative but the one he is promoting. The probability of life remains the same, only our perception of numbers has changed.
“Scientists who looked for life were once dismissed as working on the fringes of science. Now, Shostak said, it's the other way around. He said that given the mounting evidence, to believe now that Earth is the only place harboring life 'is essentially like believing in miracles.' And astronomers tend not to believe in miracles.”
--This is so bogus, where to begin? The wacky fringe is now the mainstream? And that's OK? Boy that sounds like a plan. Mounting evidence? Bad star counts that are now "good" star counts are not evidence of life, but scientists and their reporter followers are just oblivious to this simple truth. Astronomers don't believe in miracles? This means, painted with the broadest brush, they are all hard-core atheists, godless wonks declaring the framework for the unknowable?
“Astronomers, however, do believe in proof. They don't have proof of life yet.”
--One gram of truth appears, 16 inches after the prior guesswork-presented-as-fact story, which is why they're called “stories.”
“Last week, a Yale University astronomer said he estimates there are 300 sextillion stars - triple the previous number.”
--More stars, a guess by a single person, suggests the entire scientific community was wrong all this time, by 300%. Nonetheless, it is adopted by the AP and the science community, and now amounts to more “evidence.” Is it any wonder so many people are doubting so-called modern science, scientists, NASA, and the buckets of federal dollars spent on studying everything from cow farts to global whining to astronomical counting as a substitute for evidence? Science, like the media, is earning its troubled reputation. And I happen to like science.
I'll be the first to jump up and shout omigod when alien life is discovered, if it's discovered, elsewhere or here, especially if it's been here at Area 51 since the 1940s. But puhleeeeze, don't fill me with editorial guesswork where the news hole is supposed to be. The entire "news" media were out stargazing and could not be reached for comment.