Can you link some evidence for this as I am interested in discovering more.
Google is your friend. For instance, here is
one major discovery, here's
another one. In cases like these, they use
spectroscopy to detect it remotely. In the case of
the moon and
Mars, water has also been detected in a variety of other ways.
Chemistry. Life needs
liquid water, the elemental macronutrients (
carbon,
hydrogen,
nitrogen, oxygen,
phosphorus, and
sulfur), a benign chemical environment (i.e. one that allows organic chemistry - e.g. no excess of powerful oxidants & reductants, protection from ionizing radiation, etc.), and long term environmental stability.
No thy have hypothesized that there is water in these places they havnt proven this. It could be another liquid of some sort and not water as we know it. They would have to go there and test it to find out which they havnt done. So actually I do understand the science and science states that you dont assume but do tests to verify things.
No. You don't appear to understand this science -
spectroscopy is a test that can unambiguously verify water (and there are other, more indirect, techniques).
Lets say there is then the type of water that these places will have will not be the same as water on earth. We can tell this without having to test it because the type of water on earth needs certain conditions. One of those is oxygen. For oxygen you need to have the right atmosphere which is like earths. As far as we know all these places we have thought to have water do not have the same atmosphere as earths.
No. Please don't pretend knowledge you clearly don't have. There's plenty of
information about this online - for example,
where does water come from? and
water in the universe. We can't yet detect the atmospheric composition of most habitable planet candidates, but they're unlikely to be like Earth's is today. When life started on Earth, the atmosphere was very different, with practically no free oxygen, and more methane and ammonia. The evolution of photosynthesis changed that, producing free oxygen that killed off most anaerobic life (the
Oxygen Catastrophe), leading to more modern atmospheric conditions - which humans have also been changing.
Remember the point was that earth is special and has many finely tuned conditions to give it what it has. One of those is an atmosphere which will produce the unique water we have which is a prerequisite for life itself.
Earth water is not unique, it's just H
2O. Water found on some comets (remember Rosetta?) contains more heavy hydrogen (deuterium) than Earth's, but the water in asteroids is just like Earth's, and much of Earth's water is thought to have come from asteroidal impacts.
Life demands many finely tuned conditions which makes things hard to believe that it all just blew into place by naturalistic processes and then happened to fall into exactly the right place in our part of the universe. Not just with a few right conditions but 100s. Thats why scientists like to use the multiverse as a way of explaining our finely tuned universe.
You're confusing the appearance of cosmological fine tuning with the statistical probability of a planet being habitable; they're two quite different domains. For planets, it's just the 'law of big numbers' - given a large number of planets that vary randomly (within certain constraints), even a low-probability configuration is likely to occur. As it happens, a roughly Earth-like habitable configuration is more common than was expected - we already have a
large catalogue of candidates.
But they would rather believe that there are millions of other universes with millions of other conditions and life forms than believe that maybe there is some ID in ours.
No, the multiverse hypothesis has nothing to do with that. Our own observable universe has around 200 billion galaxies with around 200 billion stars in each, and is part of a universe at least 20 times bigger than that. Even if the chances of life getting started on a planet selected at random were trillions to one against, the universe would contain millions or billions of examples; although at those odds the average separation would be so great we'd be unlikely to detect them. But given the number of habitable candidates already discovered, there is some optimism that life may be far more common than previously anticipated.