Quote:Exactly, life is everywhere we look on Earth. Yet it is nowhere we have seen yet in the rest of the universe
I can't think you're serious. We haven't tested anything remotely approaching 'the rest of the universe'. Using this as a counter is quite a bit like a 10th century Polynesian denying the possibility of the existence of Europe because he can't see it from his canoe.
Quote:(i know we don't have a large sample size yet, but still).
'But still' me bony white Irish arse - there's no 'but still' involved. It isn't that we don't have a large sample size, but that our sample size - except for scratching a few centimeters into the surface of Mars - is non-existent.
Quote:This could easily point to the fact that they were designed to live in all conditions.
If so, then it plays merry hob with the 'fine tuning' argument. If life can exist in all conditions, what is there to fine tune?
Quote:If we have archaea that live in Mars-like conditions here on earth, then why aren't there bacteria on mars.
Do you know that there are no bacteria on Mars? I certainly don't, and neither does anyone else.
Quote:When you look at how complicated the mechanisms that allow extremophiles to survive in these areas, it begins to look more like design (at least to me),
Of course it looks that way to you, since you have an admitted bias to find design in anything. But if life is designed, it requires a Designer, as your lot never seem to get tired of saying. But apparent design can't be attributed to a Designer unless you prove the Designer first. If we can find an explanation for complicated living systems that does not require a Designer, then your speculation is required to take a back seat to a verified, explicable mechanism for complexity. Fortunately, we have one. It's called 'natural selection'.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
