- Oct 2011
- Italy, Lago Maggiore
If you want to enter the obscure realm of rhetoric you should read better what I post before of opening its ancient doors ...I'm not sure why you quoted my post, you ignored every point I made? If you can think of a set of chemical reactions that use silicon that give rise to something that looks like life, well done, you've proved that Silicon based life is at least possible. If you don't find such a chemical reaction, you have shown nothing at all. Just because I can't find my favourite t-shirt doesn't mean that the t-shirt doesn't exist. It *could* mean that, but it could also mean that I haven't looked well enough. So what if there's no silicon based life on Mars? There's no carbon based life on the moon, but that proves nothing at all.
Are you familiar with xkcd?
Precisely the same logical falacy. To paraphrase the common archaeological idiom, "Lack of a proof for a statement being true is not a proof of the statement being false".
I said ...
I would underline that I finished my brief statement clearly saying ... "May be in other solar systems this is possible". Then I know that some scientists consider silicon base life impossible because of the reasons explained in the article on Scientific American I've mentioned [the link to the article is in my previous post].You know ... science is based on observation and experiment. Mars tells us that silicon superior species are not possible in reality [Mars is perfect for aliens with a biology based on silicon]. May be in other solar systems this is possible.