RE: So your an Athiest
December 5, 2015 at 4:27 pm
(This post was last modified: December 5, 2015 at 4:40 pm by AAA.)
(December 5, 2015 at 4:13 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:Well actually those are parameters that are believed to be necessary for life to evolve on a specific planet. So without them you don't get life. You seem to be under the impression that life will inevitably arise no matter what the conditions. I disagree.(December 5, 2015 at 3:57 pm)AAA Wrote: It was covered a little bit. Just a thought, but maybe the majority of the universe is inhospitable to life to show us how rare and privileged our planet is. As for earth, it is extremely well suited for life. It has the appropriate magnetic field, the well sized and positioned moon, it has the proper atmospheric conditions, it is in the habitable zone, it is the right size, and we have the proper sun to support life, we have the gas giants to attract and absorb asteroids, and we have an abundance of water. These are just a few of the many parameters that need to be met for a planet to sustain life.
Not necessarily. Really those are just parameters that exist on this planet, so life on this planet has evolved to thrive within them. For all we know, there could be a much wider range of life-supporting planets than we think. Microscopic life can exist under very extreme conditions on Earth, so it stands to reason that it's more common in the Universe than more complex macro-lifeforms.
Maybe the Universe is so inhospitable to life because the Universe doesn't have a designer or intended purpose, and life is just something that incidentally occurs here under the right circumstances. There's really no reason why that explanation is any less plausible than yours, and it's more easily testable, so Occam's Razor demands we rule it out before moving on to "Gaud did it."
Furthermore, if you trace any specific process or event back far enough the statistics make it seem really unlikely. That's not really the best way to determine how likely life is. A better way would be to look at the elements in the Universe versus the elements used in biochemistry.
Life is based mostly on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. Carbon can make the greatest range of compounds of just about any atom on the periodic table (making it extremely well-suited to the versatility that organic chemistry requires), and those four elements are among the most abundant in our Universe (Helium is pretty common, too, but its being inert excludes it from most chemical reactions). Taking this into consideration along with the sheer size of the Universe and number of opportunities there must be for the proper conditions to be met, it actually seems that life is inevitable, not impossible, and there's certainly no reason to believe it has to be sparked by anything intelligent.
Similar to that, the universe permits conditions for life that are unlikely. For example, the universe is expanding at a certain rate, but gravity is also pulling things back at a certain intensity. These two are counteracted in such a fine balance. Changing one even the slightest bit inhibits the formation of planets. There doesn't seem to be any reason that these two are balanced this way, but they are. It looks like some intelligence set these values the way they are.
(December 5, 2015 at 4:27 pm)AAA Wrote:(December 5, 2015 at 4:13 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Not necessarily. Really those are just parameters that exist on this planet, so life on this planet has evolved to thrive within them. For all we know, there could be a much wider range of life-supporting planets than we think. Microscopic life can exist under very extreme conditions on Earth, so it stands to reason that it's more common in the Universe than more complex macro-lifeforms.Well actually those are parameters that are believed to be necessary for life to evolve on a specific planet. So without them you don't get life. You seem to be under the impression that life will inevitably arise no matter what the conditions. I disagree.
Maybe the Universe is so inhospitable to life because the Universe doesn't have a designer or intended purpose, and life is just something that incidentally occurs here under the right circumstances. There's really no reason why that explanation is any less plausible than yours, and it's more easily testable, so Occam's Razor demands we rule it out before moving on to "Gaud did it."
Furthermore, if you trace any specific process or event back far enough the statistics make it seem really unlikely. That's not really the best way to determine how likely life is. A better way would be to look at the elements in the Universe versus the elements used in biochemistry.
Life is based mostly on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. Carbon can make the greatest range of compounds of just about any atom on the periodic table (making it extremely well-suited to the versatility that organic chemistry requires), and those four elements are among the most abundant in our Universe (Helium is pretty common, too, but its being inert excludes it from most chemical reactions). Taking this into consideration along with the sheer size of the Universe and number of opportunities there must be for the proper conditions to be met, it actually seems that life is inevitable, not impossible, and there's certainly no reason to believe it has to be sparked by anything intelligent.
Similar to that, the universe permits conditions for life that are unlikely. For example, the universe is expanding at a certain rate, but gravity is also pulling things back at a certain intensity. These two are counteracted in such a fine balance. Changing one even the slightest bit inhibits the formation of planets. There doesn't seem to be any reason that these two are balanced this way, but they are. It looks like some intelligence set these values the way they are.
Also carbon does react uniquely, but there is no chemical reason that they should formulate into complex sequences.
(December 5, 2015 at 4:11 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote:I guess I don't know what you want from me. Is the claim that you want me to support that diseases are becoming more prevalent as time goes on? If so, it is just a fact that there are many diseases caused by mutation in genes. Just look up genetic disorders, and realize that they arise from mutated gene sequences.(December 5, 2015 at 1:20 pm)AAA Wrote: Cancer rates are expected to increase by 75 % by 2030, and by 90% in developed countries.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/246061.php
Cancer arises when mutations in the DNA that codes for enzymes that regulate the cell cycle accumulate. When you lose the ability to regulate the cell cycle, you get cancer cells. As mutations accumulate, so do diseases. This is just one example.
Hi,
Sorry, but Correlation =/= Causation.
The above link is not evidence but a commentary. I want hard scientific data from relevent Oncological or immunology journals please to back up your claims. The above link does not support or verify the ones you made here.
Thanks.
(December 5, 2015 at 4:11 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: It's so well tuned for life that only 99% of all life in history has died out.Maybe a flood killed them?
