By your logic, if were only assuming life can exist on a planet exactly like ours, then does there need to be 8 planets in it's system?
What the hell are you talking about? That's not at all my logic. I went very far out of my way to emphasize that there can be life on many sizes of worlds, but Earth is the most likely place to start. Don't put words in my mouth. Go back up and read my post. And at ANY rate, what the hell does this "8 planets" spiel mean? What are you rambling about?
Does it need to have one Moon?
No. Nor are they looking for planets with one moon. Nor did I suggest they are, or should be. That's arbitrary. Mass and size are not arbitrary.
I wholly understand the logic of where they are looking but Earth-sized planets have just as much chance to be barren and worthless
Wrong. They have an extraordinarily superior chance to be barren and worthless. NEVERTHELESS what you refuse to accept is that we have one template to go by, and that is planet Earth. If you think that NASA should be checking Jovian-sized bodies for life, or Martian-sized bodies... that's fine, but they ought not to take priority over Terrestrial-sized ones.
(See: Mars),
Mars is much smaller than the Earth.
and smaller bodies can have much higher chance of forming life
Smaller bodies may and may not harbor life. But again, the Earth is the only empirically-proven world to hold life. Thus, they are searching for similarly-sized worlds as the best candidates. It's totally logical. I don't know what your stubborn argument is here.
(See: Europa).
You're using Europa as an example of what... that smaller celestial bodies may hold life? Nobody knows if it does or not... it cannot be admitted as evidence. Or Titan, for that matter.
A gas giant probably cannot support life itself
I probably agree, but we don't know how life might evolve elsewhere. Airborne bacteria, what have you... we can only speculate, so I wouldn't entirely dismiss it.
What the hell are you talking about? That's not at all my logic. I went very far out of my way to emphasize that there can be life on many sizes of worlds, but Earth is the most likely place to start. Don't put words in my mouth. Go back up and read my post. And at ANY rate, what the hell does this "8 planets" spiel mean? What are you rambling about?
Does it need to have one Moon?
No. Nor are they looking for planets with one moon. Nor did I suggest they are, or should be. That's arbitrary. Mass and size are not arbitrary.
I wholly understand the logic of where they are looking but Earth-sized planets have just as much chance to be barren and worthless
Wrong. They have an extraordinarily superior chance to be barren and worthless. NEVERTHELESS what you refuse to accept is that we have one template to go by, and that is planet Earth. If you think that NASA should be checking Jovian-sized bodies for life, or Martian-sized bodies... that's fine, but they ought not to take priority over Terrestrial-sized ones.
(See: Mars),
Mars is much smaller than the Earth.
and smaller bodies can have much higher chance of forming life
Smaller bodies may and may not harbor life. But again, the Earth is the only empirically-proven world to hold life. Thus, they are searching for similarly-sized worlds as the best candidates. It's totally logical. I don't know what your stubborn argument is here.
(See: Europa).
You're using Europa as an example of what... that smaller celestial bodies may hold life? Nobody knows if it does or not... it cannot be admitted as evidence. Or Titan, for that matter.
A gas giant probably cannot support life itself
I probably agree, but we don't know how life might evolve elsewhere. Airborne bacteria, what have you... we can only speculate, so I wouldn't entirely dismiss it.
H.R.M. DARVNIVS MAXIMVS EX TENEBRIS EXIT REX DEVSQVE GORONORVMQVE TENDORVM ROMANORVM ET GRÆCORVM OMNIS SEMPER EST