Yes, what is so interesting about it is that from one perspective it really is a non issue - every sane person knows that the life that has been scientifically studied is life on earth so that is obviously what the statement refers to. However, when one says “all life” and means “all life that has been studied on earth” one unintentionally implies that life only exists on earth. We have only observed life on earth and have no proof for life elsewhere, but at the same time, it is equally unscientific to say that life does exist beyond the solar system with no proof of this as saying that life must necessarily only exist on earth when it is statistically unlikely that it doesn’t exist elsewhere. I know I am splitting hairs here, but as a humanist I just became very fascinated with the limits of reasonably readable language to convey the nuances of this conundrum.