Do You Think All Roads Lead To God? (Poll)

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

You wrote, "life can most certainly exist on conditions that are not identical to Earth's". Really, bring me an example of this "life that can exist in the universe in conditions that are not identical to earth's."

The anthropic factors are much more than just things like enviromental conditions such as the surrounding temperature in which life exists, they are things like the settings for the strong and weak nuclear forces, the strength of gravity, the difference in mass between a proton an neutron, they synthesis of carbon, the nature of water, etc.

Here is some more information

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htmblackregiment

OK, I revised my statement to "can exist" to accomodate this "can exist, science of the gaps speculation". :)

By the way, you are welcome to bring forth examples of this life that "can exist". as well.

Since we are now in the realm of accepting "can exist", if you subscribe to this "can exist" speculation, then to be logically consistent, you should be willing to acknowledge that God can exist as well.

Now... would you not agree that, say, the vacuum of space qualifies as an environment not identical to earth's? >_>

Oh, and by the way - other life being able to exist in non-earthly conditions doesn't imply that God can exist. Regardless, I don't deny that it's possible that God exists.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]He never claimed that life exists in the universe in conditions that are not identical to earth's. He said it can. Nice straw man though. :roll:Funky_Llama

OK, I revised my statement to "can exist" to accomodate this "can exist, science of the gaps speculation". :)

By the way, you are welcome to bring forth examples of this life that "can exist". as well.

Since we are now in the realm of accepting "can exist", if you subscribe to this "can exist" speculation, then to be logically consistent, you should be willing to acknowledge that God can exist as well.

Now... would you not agree that, say, the vacuum of space qualifies as an environment not identical to earth's? >_>

Oh, and by the way - other life being able to exist in non-earthly conditions doesn't imply that God can exist. Regardless, I don't deny that it's possible that God exists.

I do not dispute that life can exist in harsh conditions. That proves nothing other than life can exist in harsh conditions. The problem with the example you put forth is that it is "existing on earth", therefore is excluded as evidence supporting the assertion that "life can most certainly exist on conditions that are not identical to Earth's". In order for something to be used as evidence to support that assertion, the example would have to be a lifeform existing somewhere other that earth in conditions that are not identical to earth's.

Bring me that evidence? I am waiting...

Good luck in your search.:)

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

OK, I revised my statement to "can exist" to accomodate this "can exist, science of the gaps speculation". :)

By the way, you are welcome to bring forth examples of this life that "can exist". as well.

Since we are now in the realm of accepting "can exist", if you subscribe to this "can exist" speculation, then to be logically consistent, you should be willing to acknowledge that God can exist as well.

blackregiment

Now... would you not agree that, say, the vacuum of space qualifies as an environment not identical to earth's? >_>

Oh, and by the way - other life being able to exist in non-earthly conditions doesn't imply that God can exist. Regardless, I don't deny that it's possible that God exists.

I do not dispute that life can exist in harsh conditions. That proves nothing other than life can exist in harsh conditions. The problem with the example you put forth is that it is "existing on earth", therefore is excluded as evidence supporting the assertion that "life can most certainly exist on conditions that are not identical to Earth's". In order for something to be used as evidence to support that assertion, the example would have to be a lifeform existing somewhere other that earth in conditions that are not identical to earth's.

Bring me that evidence? I am waiting...

Good luck in your search.:)

roll: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14690 They can survive in the vacuum of space. That is, I'm sure you'll agree, somewhere other than earth. It has conditions that are not identical to earth's. Therefore life and most certainly exist in conditions that are not identical to Earth's. Honestly, why you even bothered to deny it I don't know. What's so special about earth that can't be replicated by any of the billiions upon billions of other planets in the universe?Funky_Llama

That is interesting but inconclusive. They were "dried out", a non-natural state, while in space, they survived an exposure of 10 whole days, wow? I wonder how they would do for a year or maybe a thousand or million years? How about the exposure to radiation, what would happen in periods of a year, a thousand years, etc.

There is a lot that is special about earth, see the anthropic factors. for more information. Your speculation regarding the billions and billions of other planets is just that, mere speculation.

I have some information on that that I may post later if I can find it.

Right now, I have to get ready for Church.

This is an interesting read. Also, if God can be eternal, why can't the universe? Why is there not some random eternal badger or elephant? You can't have 1 set of rules for 1 entity and another set for a different one.

PS, enjoy wasting your morning to no avail :P Besides isn't Sunday a day of rest? Seems illogical that going to an organised gathering on that day is compulsory despite it being a day of rest.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

roll: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14690 They can survive in the vacuum of space. That is, I'm sure you'll agree, somewhere other than earth. It has conditions that are not identical to earth's. Therefore life and most certainly exist in conditions that are not identical to Earth's. Honestly, why you even bothered to deny it I don't know. What's so special about earth that can't be replicated by any of the billiions upon billions of other planets in the universe?blackregiment

That is interesting but inconclusive. They were "dried out", a non-natural state, while in space, they survived an exposure of 10 whole days, wow? I wonder how they would do for a year or maybe a thousand or million years? How about the exposure to radiation, what would happen in periods of a year, a thousand years, etc.

There is a lot that is special about earth, see the anthropic factors. for more information. Your speculation regarding the billions and billions of other planets is just that, mere speculation.

I have some information on that that I may post later if I can find it.

Right now, I have to get ready for Church.

Do you mean "do I think anyone can go to the afterlife" or do you mean "do I think everyone will find God eventually"?

Because I do not believe the first.

Zackariel

Actually neither statements are correct. (well maybe the first one a bit) I believe the main question is, "do you think no matter what religion you choose will you end up to God?" But Crush uses it in a way that states, "Yes, but you will either be going to hell or heaven depending on what religion/characteristics you choose, so no matter what you'll be going to God." Hopefully that helps, I'm pretty bad at explaining things.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

You missed my point-the point is that the amino acids were created under conditions that could have occurred in nature, which is why this is significant.

blackregiment

That sounds good but did that really happen. Intelligence was required to design the scientific apparatus used, the apparatus included a trap in its design to trap and separate any amino acids created from the toxic solution that would destroy them if they were allowed to mix, the assumption on the atmosphere they used is now accepted as not being representative of early earth's atmosphere, it does nothing to address the problem of chirality, etc.

Did these conditions really exist in nature?

Here is some more information on the problems with the "origin of life from chemicals" hypothesis.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

I suppose my question on page nine will remain unanswered, and this poor, lost soul will have to find his own way to the Lord. Here's hoping I figure it out before I die with the wrong beliefs, because I doubt God takes "they ignored me" as a valid excuse (unless C. S. Lewis had something going on there).Zackariel

And what question is that? I you care to repost it, I will attempt to answer your question?

[QUOTE="Zackariel"]I suppose my question on page nine will remain unanswered, and this poor, lost soul will have to find his own way to the Lord. Here's hoping I figure it out before I die with the wrong beliefs, because I doubt God takes "they ignored me" as a valid excuse (unless C. S. Lewis had something going on there).blackregiment

And what question is that? I you care to repost it, I will attempt to answer your question?

Do you mean "do I think anyone can go to the afterlife" or do you mean "do I think everyone will find God eventually"?

Because I do not believe the first.

Zackariel

I suppose my question on page nine will remain unanswered, and this poor, lost soul will have to find his own way to the Lord. Here's hoping I figure it out before I die with the wrong beliefs, because I doubt God takes "they ignored me" as a valid excuse (unless C. S. Lewis had something going on there).Zackariel

And what question is that? I you care to repost it, I will attempt to answer your question?

blackregiment

Here's how I found it: Step 1: go to page 9.

[QUOTE="Zackariel"]

Do you mean "do I think anyone can go to the afterlife" or do you mean "do I think everyone will find God eventually"?

Because I do not believe the first.

Funky_Llama

Well I am not certain that that is the question he is referring to since in his post, that you quoted, he suggests that his queston relates to something that concerns finding one's way to the Lord and eternal salvation that he urgently must figure out "before he dies".

The two questions you reposted are more of a request for clarification of what question the TC or someone was asking, foollowed by an assertion of what he believes. than a question about salvation.

Though you are not Zackariel, I will repeat what I asked him, not you. What question do you urgently need answered. If you claridfy that and repost it, I will try to answer it.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

You missed my point-the point is that the amino acids were created under conditions that could have occurred in nature, which is why this is significant.

3picuri3

That sounds good but did that really happen. Intelligence was required to design the scientific apparatus used, the apparatus included a trap in its design to trap and separate any amino acids created from the toxic solution that would destroy them if they were allowed to mix, the assumption on the atmosphere they used is now accepted as not being representative of early earth's atmosphere, it does nothing to address the problem of chirality, etc.

Did these conditions really exist in nature?

Here is some more information on the problems with the "origin of life from chemicals" hypothesis.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

Your comment is a good example of the genetic logical fallacy. If you want to limit yourself to the framework of that logical fallacy, fine, but others are not obligated to do so as well.

Ultimatlely I think we all get the choice, accept or reject God. That's my view on it.123625

I concur with that statement. God gave each of a free will to make that choice.

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

And where do these complex and precise laws come from?Did they just "create" themselves? What about the precisely set anthropic factors, which if slightly changed would make the formation of our universe and life as we know it impossible? Who determined their settings?

blackregiment

I've already explained this earlier in the thread; life can most certainly exist on conditions that are not identical to Earth's. Go look up extremophiles and the Water Bear.

Nobody currently knows how the universe was formed, if there is/is not a deity present, etc. so I don't know what you're trying to prove by asking, "who created these laws?" We will inevitably learn more about our surrounding physical world as time progresses, but it's too early in human history to make a sound judgementation.

You wrote, "life can most certainly exist on conditions that are not identical to Earth's".Really, bring me an example of this "life that can exist in the universe in conditions that are not identical to earth's."

The anthropic factors are much more than just things like enviromental conditions such as the surrounding temperature in which life exists, they are things like the settings for the strong and weak nuclear forces, the strength of gravity, the difference in mass between a proton an neutron, they synthesis of carbon, the nature of water, etc.

Here is some more information

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm

Apparently, you didn't even look through the links I sent you. Again I say, look up extremophiles and the Water Bear, since they could both potentially live on a planet outside of Earth, such as Mars.

Extremophile bacteria live in conditions where the temperature is extremely high or low, while under immense pressure (living at the bottom of the ocean tends to put thousands of gallons of water pushing down on you), and without any sort of sunlight at all.

No, there is only one road and what you do on that road determines how you will be reborn after your human body passes.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

roll: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14690 They can survive in the vacuum of space. That is, I'm sure you'll agree, somewhere other than earth. It has conditions that are not identical to earth's. Therefore life and most certainly exist in conditions that are not identical to Earth's. Honestly, why you even bothered to deny it I don't know. What's so special about earth that can't be replicated by any of the billiions upon billions of other planets in the universe?Funky_Llama

That is interesting but inconclusive. They were "dried out", a non-natural state, while in space, they survived an exposure of 10 whole days, wow? I wonder how they would do for a year or maybe a thousand or million years? How about the exposure to radiation, what would happen in periods of a year, a thousand years, etc.

There is a lot that is special about earth, see the anthropic factors. for more information. Your speculation regarding the billions and billions of other planets is just that, mere speculation.

I have some information on that that I may post later if I can find it.

Right now, I have to get ready for Church.

Let me correct you. I have not said that "earth is the only planet in the entire universe on which life can exist." God could have well created life on other planets. What I have said is that there are many factors, known collectively as the anthropic factors that are precisely set and the slightest variation of anyone of these would make life on earth, as we know it, impossible. The variation of some of these would make the formation of the universe impossible as well. This is evidence of Divine intelligence, purpose, and intervention.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]

I've already explained this earlier in the thread; life can most certainly exist on conditions that are not identical to Earth's. Go look up extremophiles and the Water Bear.

Nobody currently knows how the universe was formed, if there is/is not a deity present, etc. so I don't know what you're trying to prove by asking, "who created these laws?" We will inevitably learn more about our surrounding physical world as time progresses, but it's too early in human history to make a sound judgementation.

-Jiggles-

You wrote, "life can most certainly exist on conditions that are not identical to Earth's".Really, bring me an example of this "life that can exist in the universe in conditions that are not identical to earth's."

The anthropic factors are much more than just things like enviromental conditions such as the surrounding temperature in which life exists, they are things like the settings for the strong and weak nuclear forces, the strength of gravity, the difference in mass between a proton an neutron, they synthesis of carbon, the nature of water, etc.

Here is some more information

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm

Apparently, you didn't even look through the links I sent you. Again I say, look up extremophiles and the Water Bear, since they could both potentially live on a planet outside of Earth, such as Mars.

Extremophile bacteria live in conditions where the temperature is extremely high or low, while under immense pressure (living at the bottom of the ocean tends to put thousands of gallons of water pushing down on you), and without any sort of sunlight at all.

As a matter of fact I did read those articles and commented on one of them in a post to Funky Llama earlier in the thread.

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

You wrote, "life can most certainly exist on conditions that are not identical to Earth's".Really, bring me an example of this "life that can exist in the universe in conditions that are not identical to earth's."

The anthropic factors are much more than just things like enviromental conditions such as the surrounding temperature in which life exists, they are things like the settings for the strong and weak nuclear forces, the strength of gravity, the difference in mass between a proton an neutron, they synthesis of carbon, the nature of water, etc.

Here is some more information

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htmblackregiment

Apparently, you didn't even look through the links I sent you. Again I say, look up extremophiles and the Water Bear, since they could both potentially live on a planet outside of Earth, such as Mars.

Extremophile bacteria live in conditions where the temperature is extremely high or low, while under immense pressure (living at the bottom of the ocean tends to put thousands of gallons of water pushing down on you), and without any sort of sunlight at all.

As a matter of fact I did read those articles and commented on one of them in a post to Funky Llama earlier in the thread.

Reading back in the thread then, I will have to ask you the same question Funy_Llama did.

Where, on Earth, could an animal naturally live within a vacuum of space?

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

That sounds good but did that really happen. Intelligence was required to design the scientific apparatus used, the apparatus included a trap in its design to trap and separate any amino acids created from the toxic solution that would destroy them if they were allowed to mix, the assumption on the atmosphere they used is now accepted as not being representative of early earth's atmosphere, it does nothing to address the problem of chirality, etc.

Did these conditions really exist in nature?

Here is some more information on the problems with the "origin of life from chemicals" hypothesis.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

blackregiment

Your comment is a good example of the genetic logical fallacy. If you want to limit yourself to the framework of that logical fallacy, fine, but others are not obligated to do so as well.

it's not a comment, but a question. any fallacy was through your own implication, not due to anything i typed. thanks for your concern and analysis though. for future reference, a question mark is used to denote a question.

ironic given your past complaints of people 'commingling' and deriving other meanings from your words aside from your original intention isn't it?

while we're on the topic I thought I'd link this, I noticed it earlier and think it bears some relevance:

How to Spot a Hidden Religious Agenda

a brief piece on the fallacies and arguments used by religious 'science' writers by a writer / editor from New Scientist

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126975.800-how-to-spot-a-hidden-religious-agenda.html?DCMP=OTC-rss

Reading back in the thread then, I will have to ask you the same question Funy_Llama did.

Where, on Earth, could an animal naturally live within a vacuum of space?

-Jiggles-

Huh? I never said that. an animal could live somewhere on earth in a vacuum.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="3picuri3"] you cite god & science as a legitimate resource? 3picuri3

Your comment is a good example of the genetic logical fallacy. If you want to limit yourself to the framework of that logical fallacy, fine, but others are not obligated to do so as well.

It is not about what I say. What I say, matters not. It is about what Christ said and the work He did on the cross. That is what matters.

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Your comment is a good example of the genetic logical fallacy. If you want to limit yourself to the framework of that logical fallacy, fine, but others are not obligated to do so as well.

blackregiment

It is not about what I say. What I say, matters not. It is about what Christ said and the work He did on the cross. That is what matters.

All roads lead to hell :x

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

That is interesting but inconclusive. They were "dried out", a non-natural state, while in space, they survived an exposure of 10 whole days, wow? I wonder how they would do for a year or maybe a thousand or million years? How about the exposure to radiation, what would happen in periods of a year, a thousand years, etc.

There is a lot that is special about earth, see the anthropic factors. for more information. Your speculation regarding the billions and billions of other planets is just that, mere speculation.

I have some information on that that I may post later if I can find it.

Right now, I have to get ready for Church.

blackregiment

Let me correct you. I have not said that "earth is the only planet in the entire universe on which life can exist." God could have well created life on other planets. What I have said is that there are many factors, known collectively as the anthropic factors that are precisely set and the slightest variation of anyone of these would make life on earth, as we know it, impossible. The variation of some of these would make the formation of the universe impossible as well. This is evidence of Divine intelligence, purpose, and intervention.

If you want to talk about physical laws that are anthropic factors, then consider a multiverse with multiple sets ofphysical laws.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]What's non-natural about that? That's just their natural reaction to extreme dehydration as far as I can tell. Anyway, the point is, they existed in space. And I await your information on what's special about the earth that makes it the only planet on which life can subsist. :roll:MetalGear_Ninty

Let me correct you. I have not said that "earth is the only planet in the entire universe on which life can exist." God could have well created life on other planets. What I have said is that there are many factors, known collectively as the anthropic factors that are precisely set and the slightest variation of anyone of these would make life on earth, as we know it, impossible. The variation of some of these would make the formation of the universe impossible as well. This is evidence of Divine intelligence, purpose, and intervention.

That is debatable. here is a link that suggests otherwise.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/the_mathematical_probability_of_life_on_other_earth_like_planets

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Let me correct you. I have not said that "earth is the only planet in the entire universe on which life can exist." God could have well created life on other planets. What I have said is that there are many factors, known collectively as the anthropic factors that are precisely set and the slightest variation of anyone of these would make life on earth, as we know it, impossible. The variation of some of these would make the formation of the universe impossible as well. This is evidence of Divine intelligence, purpose, and intervention.

blackregiment

That is debatable. here is a link that suggests otherwise.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/the_mathematical_probability_of_life_on_other_earth_like_planets

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/02/25/galaxy.planets.kepler/index.html?iref=newssearch

beauty of science. everyone has a theory.

In a paper published recently in the International Journal of Astrobiology, the researchers concluded that based on what they saw, at least 361 intelligent civilizations have emerged in the Milky Way since its creation, and as many as 38,000 may have formed.

protip: most science is debatable by nature.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] The vast number of planets in the universe means that it is likely that at least one of them will have conditions that would have provided the basis for the evolution of life as we know it.

3picuri3

That is debatable. here is a link that suggests otherwise.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/the_mathematical_probability_of_life_on_other_earth_like_planets

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/02/25/galaxy.planets.kepler/index.html?iref=newssearch

beauty of science. everyone has a theory.

In a paper published recently in the International Journal of Astrobiology, the researchers concluded that based on what they saw, at least 361 intelligent civilizations have emerged in the Milky Way since its creation, and as many as 38,000 may have formed.

protip: most science is debatable by nature.

Let me correct you. I have not said that "earth is the only planet in the entire universe on which life can exist." God could have well created life on other planets. What I have said is that there are many factors, known collectively as the anthropic factors that are precisely set and the slightest variation of anyone of these would make life on earth, as we know it, impossible. The variation of some of these would make the formation of the universe impossible as well. This is evidence of Divine intelligence, purpose, and intervention.

blackregiment

Really, bring me an example of this "life that can exist in the universe in conditions that are not identical to earth's."blackregiment

All roads lead to hell :x

N3P5T3R

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Let me correct you. I have not said that "earth is the only planet in the entire universe on which life can exist." God could have well created life on other planets. What I have said is that there are many factors, known collectively as the anthropic factors that are precisely set and the slightest variation of anyone of these would make life on earth, as we know it, impossible. The variation of some of these would make the formation of the universe impossible as well. This is evidence of Divine intelligence, purpose, and intervention.

Funky_Llama

Really, bring me an example of this "life that can exist in the universe in conditions that are not identical to earth's."blackregiment

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Let me correct you. I have not said that "earth is the only planet in the entire universe on which life can exist." God could have well created life on other planets. What I have said is that there are many factors, known collectively as the anthropic factors that are precisely set and the slightest variation of anyone of these would make life on earth, as we know it, impossible. The variation of some of these would make the formation of the universe impossible as well. This is evidence of Divine intelligence, purpose, and intervention.

blackregiment

That is debatable. here is a link that suggests otherwise.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/the_mathematical_probability_of_life_on_other_earth_like_planets

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Let me correct you. I have not said that "earth is the only planet in the entire universe on which life can exist." God could have well created life on other planets. What I have said is that there are many factors, known collectively as the anthropic factors that are precisely set and the slightest variation of anyone of these would make life on earth, as we know it, impossible. The variation of some of these would make the formation of the universe impossible as well. This is evidence of Divine intelligence, purpose, and intervention.

Funky_Llama

Really, bring me an example of this "life that can exist in the universe in conditions that are not identical to earth's."blackregiment

I asked you to provide an example of this "life that was claimed can exist in the universe in conditions that are not identical to earth's." I asked that a specimen, an example be provided. Please tell me that you don't think that is the same thing as saying that I said that "earth is the only planet in the entire universe on which life can exist."

You are trying to make something out of nothing like the "big bang" theory.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] The vast number of planets in the universe means that it is likely that at least one of them will have conditions that would have provided the basis for the evolution of life as we know it.

Funky_Llama

That is debatable. here is a link that suggests otherwise.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/the_mathematical_probability_of_life_on_other_earth_like_planets

Well, I did see a study once that showed that naturalists have high probability of believing in UFO's, the paranormal, Big Foot, etc. Area 51 is a kind of temple to some. Let's see everything from nothing in the "big bang", life popping into existence from non-life, and now possibly becomes most certainly. It really does require a great deal of faith to be a naturalist, and without any evidence as well.Wow, that's some religion.

I asked you to provide an example of this "life that was claimed can exist in the universe in conditions that are not identical to earth's." I asked that a specimen, an example be provided. Please tell me that you don't think that is the same thing as saying that I said that "earth is the only planet in the entire universe on which life can exist."

You are trying to make something out of nothing like the "big bang" theory.

blackregiment

If you are questioning the chance of life spawning on planets dissimilar from our own then I believe you to be over-generalizing the different biospheres of the Earth. The Earth isn't just comprised of sprawling green fields, forests of pine trees, and puddles of fresh water. A lot of areas are composed of rock and harmful chemicals where life does exist. Planets like Venus could possibly support life for there are places on the Earth with similar conditions that support life. For instance Archeobacteria live and survive from salt and 100 degree celsius temperatures. What is more there are bacteria that live simply by consuming rock and expunging iron.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]Uh, what?

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]Really, bring me an example of this "life that can exist in the universe in conditions that are not identical to earth's."Funky_Llama

I asked you to provide an example of this "life that was claimed can exist in the universe in conditions that are not identical to earth's." I asked that a specimen, an example be provided. Please tell me that you don't think that is the same thing as saying that I said that "earth is the only planet in the entire universe on which life can exist."

You are trying to make something out of nothing like the "big bang" theory.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

That is debatable. here is a link that suggests otherwise.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/the_mathematical_probability_of_life_on_other_earth_like_planets

blackregiment

Well, I did see a study once that showed that naturalists have high probability of believing in UFO's, the paranormal, Big Foot, etc. Area 51 is a kind of temple to some. Let's see everything from nothing in the "big bang", life popping into existence from non-life, and now possibly becomes most certainly. It really does require a great deal of faith to be a naturalist, and without any evidence as well.Wow, that's some religion.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]0.01% probability of intelligent life. Heh - now factor in the massive number of planets in the universe, and oh look, you've just shot yourself in the foot.3picuri3

Well, I did see a study once that showed that naturalists have high probability of believing in UFO's, the paranormal, Big Foot, etc. Area 51 is a kind of temple to some. Let's see everything from nothing in the "big bang", life popping into existence from non-life, and now possibly becomes most certainly. It really does require a great deal of faith to be a naturalist, and without any evidence as well.Wow, that's some religion.

He is one of those people who argues for entertainment and doesn't seek to understand at all the views of others. This is a dilemma proposed in my sociological textbook of which I believe holds merit.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

That is debatable. here is a link that suggests otherwise.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/the_mathematical_probability_of_life_on_other_earth_like_planets

blackregiment

Well, I did see a study once that showed that naturalists have high probability of believing in UFO's, the paranormal, Big Foot, etc. Area 51 is a kind of temple to some. Let's see everything from nothing in the "big bang", life popping into existence from non-life, and now possibly becomes most certainly. It really does require a great deal of faith to be a naturalist, and without any evidence as well.Wow, that's some religion.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

I asked you to provide an example of this "life that was claimed can exist in the universe in conditions that are not identical to earth's." I asked that a specimen, an example be provided. Please tell me that you don't think that is the same thing as saying that I said that "earth is the only planet in the entire universe on which life can exist."

You are trying to make something out of nothing like the "big bang" theory.

VoodooGamer

If you are questioning the chance of life spawning on planets dissimilar from our own then I believe you to be over-generalizing the different biospheres of the Earth. The Earth isn't just comprised of sprawling green fields, forests of pine trees, and puddles of fresh water. A lot of areas are composed of rock and harmful chemicals where life does exist. Planets like Venus could possibly support life for there are places on the Earth with similar conditions that support life. For instance Archeobacteria live and survive from salt and 100 degree celsius temperatures. What is more there are bacteria that live simply by consuming rock and expunging iron.

Coulda, shouda, woulda. Bring me a specimen of life from another world. It sounds like some here have faith that it does exist. Naturalists have faith without seeing the object of their faith too.