(January 13, 2016 at 11:08 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Given a sample size of one - our planet - to say anything about life in the universe beyond what we know about what's on our planet is idiotic.  We've had virtually no up close observation of other bodies.

Fair enough. I'll predict that we don't find life on other planets. You might predict that we will. We'll have to wait and see.

(January 13, 2016 at 10:31 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 10:13 pm)AAA Wrote: Who cares if we found planets outside the solar system. It is fine tuning of the universe, not fine tuning of the solar system. 
You should read the book The Privelaged Planet, or watch the documentary, which describes how rare the conditions that permit life. Obviously rare and highly unlikely arguments aren't always good, but it's still interesting.

Here's a couple articles about the cosmological constant.

1. [Susskind2005] Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design, Little, Brown and Company, New York, 2005.
   
   
2. http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/cosmo-constant.php
   

You mentioned planet formation is incredibly unlikely.  I pointed out that it seems to be the rule rather than the exception.

Now we're moving the goalposts to life on other worlds.

We have discovered life on ONE planet, and that's likely because we've only explored ONE planet.

With all of our probes on Mars we've barely scratched the surface (pun intended) of that planet.

When they talk og the "goldilocks zone" where life is possible, they generally mean life as we know it.

Who knows what other forms life may take in the universe.  It will not be human and some may not be carbon based.

As an aside, we HAVE discovered the building blocks of life on meteors that are billions of years old.

No, I think you're misunderstanding the point about planet formation. If the universe were different, then planets would not form (earlier articles). The universe is the way it is, which allows planets to form.

(January 13, 2016 at 11:33 pm)AAA Wrote: Life doesn't have the kind of plasticity that you seem to think it does. If it could adapt to a given environment, then it would live on almost all planets

Oh my freaking goodness, the ignorance hurts me where as it should hurt him.

(January 13, 2016 at 11:38 pm)AAA Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 10:31 pm)Beccs Wrote: You mentioned planet formation is incredibly unlikely.  I pointed out that it seems to be the rule rather than the exception.

Now we're moving the goalposts to life on other worlds.

We have discovered life on ONE planet, and that's likely because we've only explored ONE planet.

With all of our probes on Mars we've barely scratched the surface (pun intended) of that planet.

When they talk og the "goldilocks zone" where life is possible, they generally mean life as we know it.

Who knows what other forms life may take in the universe.  It will not be human and some may not be carbon based.

As an aside, we HAVE discovered the building blocks of life on meteors that are billions of years old.

No, I think you're misunderstanding the point about planet formation. If the universe were different, then planets would not form (earlier articles). The universe is the way it is, which allows planets to form.

Well, that's broad and extremely vague.

If the human who designed my car had been different it wouldn't exist in it's current form.  But he exists, so my mustang is awesome and not a mini.

And, before you try, that's not any form of indication that a universal designer exists.

(January 13, 2016 at 11:33 pm)AAA Wrote: Life doesn't have the kind of plasticity that you seem to think it does. If it could adapt to a given environment, then it would live on almost all planets

These discussions always eventually reach a point where I'm not sure if the other guy is serious.

(January 13, 2016 at 11:35 pm)AAA Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 11:08 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Given a sample size of one - our planet - to say anything about life in the universe beyond what we know about what's on our planet is idiotic.  We've had virtually no up close observation of other bodies.

Fair enough. I'll predict that we don't find life on other planets. You might predict that we will. We'll have to wait and see.

And I'll predict we find some form of microbial life on at least one other planet or moon in our solar system before the turn of the century.

(January 13, 2016 at 11:46 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 11:38 pm)AAA Wrote: No, I think you're misunderstanding the point about planet formation. If the universe were different, then planets would not form (earlier articles). The universe is the way it is, which allows planets to form.

Well, that's broad and extremely vague.

If the human who designed my car had been different it wouldn't exist in it's current form.  But he exists, so my mustang is awesome and not a mini.

And, before you try, that's not any form of indication that a universal designer exists.

Its not broad when you go to the articles that explain it. Look up cosmological constant.

(January 13, 2016 at 11:50 pm)AAA Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 11:46 pm)Beccs Wrote: Well, that's broad and extremely vague.

If the human who designed my car had been different it wouldn't exist in it's current form.  But he exists, so my mustang is awesome and not a mini.

And, before you try, that's not any form of indication that a universal designer exists.

Its not broad when you go to the articles that explain it. Look up cosmological constant.

I've read about the cosmological constant.

The question is, are you looking it up on articles from a creationist website or an actual science site?

(January 13, 2016 at 11:52 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 11:50 pm)AAA Wrote: Its not broad when you go to the articles that explain it. Look up cosmological constant.

I've read about the cosmological constant.

The question is, are you looking it up on articles from a creationist website or an actual science site?

I put one from each, to try to be fair.

(January 14, 2016 at 12:15 am)AAA Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 11:52 pm)Beccs Wrote: I've read about the cosmological constant.

The question is, are you looking it up on articles from a creationist website or an actual science site?

I put one from each, to try to be fair.

I know you're trying, but so far you're doing a poor job at presenting fair cases for each side; I mean where is the fair representation for the astrologers?