I wonder how I failed to express my position so badly that people who seemingly agree with me think they don't. Ignorance and misestimation of the true underl

I wonder how I failed to express my position so badly that people who seemingly agree with me think they don't. Ignorance and misestimation of the true underlying factors isn't a trait unique to these hypothetical turtles. Or, perhaps you have a much higher confidence than I do in humans' assessment of the factors involved in your questions. I'm saying we are over-confident in the underlying premises of our understanding, just like the turtles would be. The more of the questions you pose that go partly unsolved, the more unsubstantiated the conclusion. Their probability calculations are pointless -- garbage in, garbage out. As demonstrated by the patent wrongness of their conclusion. If you are confident that we've got solid answers to the interstellar corollaries of all your questions with the evidence we can gather at this point, then we aren't on the same page at all. This idea, that our observations of the universe are a properly representative sample from which to form conclusions about the unobserved universe, makes as much sense to me as the thinking-turtles assuming you need a small green island to and a thick shell to enable sentience because that's what their observations show.