No God, but created?

[gilbertc06]

The fact that it is highly improbable is fine.

We are the only planet in the infinitely vast universe that we know inhibits life.

Yes it is highly improbable, and it is statistically understandable that it happened in one.

[tor]

Even if life was made by aliens who were aliens made by? And if they were made by aliens who were those aliens made by? There must be a random life evolved to begin with.
As for probabilities look at all the dead planets. They clearly outnumber the planets with life. Lottery.

[Mudhammam]

Why is a single cell more baffling than the idea that about 100 trillion of them are typing this sentence out?

[bennyboy]

A crystal "replicates," too. But what's happening? The chance formation of a limited number of molecules creates an environment in which that state propagates and persists in a new form-- a crystal.

In a place where liquids, gases and solids can interact freely, you have a lot of possibilities for new combinations of molecules-- and some of them will have the effect of persisting long enough to form NEW combinations with each other or with elements. That's what evolution really is-- the interaction of complexity, persistence, and time. It doesn't start with whatever arbitrary definition we make of "life"-- it starts with an environment that combines many elements in all three states.

[Whateverist]

But even as an atheist I find it really REALLY hard to swallow that life occurred by random chance.

Do you find it just as hard to believe that snow flakes form the way they do? Is that equally a sign of design? I don't think so. Cells form through the physicality of chemistry in the same way snow flakes do. While more impressive, it is the same genre of phenomenon.

You don't sound anything like an atheist. Is that just your attempt to get you foot in the door?

---

Shat and ran, right? Oh well. I'm pretty sure we can get the stains out.

[Sejanus]

I think the OP is abusing the word information, just like creationists;

Creationists, in an attempt to coat their myths with a veneer of science, have co-opted the idea of information theory to use as a plausible-sounding attack on evolution. Essentially, the claim is that the genetic code is like a language and thus transmits information, and in part due to the usual willful misunderstandings of the second law of thermodynamics (which is about energy, not information), they maintain that information can never be increased.[10] Therefore, the changes they cannot outright deny are defined as "losing information", while changes they disagree with are defined as "gaining information", which by their definition is impossible. Note that at no point do creationists actually specify what information actually is and often (thought not always, see complex specified information) will purposefully not define the concept. The creationists tend to change their meaning on an ad hoc basis depending on the argument, relying on colloquial, imprecise definitions of information rather than quantifiable ones -- or worse, switching interchangeably between different definitions depending on the context of the discussion or argument.

The deliberate conflation of the totally unrelated concepts of thermodynamic and informational entropy is, while an obvious flaw in the argument, a flaw that the creationists' intended audience is less likely to pick up on, so it remains a popular argument, as seen in Ken Ham's... debate with Bill Nye at the Creation Museum.

Also, I suspect OP is either a creationist or trolling.

[Sinbad]

The answer is still, we don't know.

And that is good enough. We don't need to invent magical sky-daddies like the theists do so they won't piss in their pants.

How long has science really been working on this stuff? Think about that and about how far we have come. Give them another 100 years.

Seems that scientific facts nowadays are stolen in order to equate them with biblical verses, 'proving' the bibles (ergo spiritual) validity. Here are some prime examples:

http://www.newchristian.org.uk/scientifi...bible.html

I haven't read them all but it's quite obvious certain words within the verses cited have been twisted slightly to fit the context of factual science. Other items in the list, and it's quite a long list, are skills and techniques folk employed to survive back in the day and are still used now.

[truthBtold]

And that is good enough. We don't need to invent magical sky-daddies like the theists do so they won't piss in their pants.

How long has science really been working on this stuff? Think about that and about how far we have come. Give them another 100 years.

Seems that scientific facts nowadays are stolen in order to equate them with biblical verses, 'proving' the bibles (ergo spiritual) validity. Here are some prime examples:

http://www.newchristian.org.uk/scientifi...bible.html

I haven't read them all but it's quite obvious certain words within the verses cited have been twisted slightly to fit the context of factual science. Other items in the list, and it's quite a long list, are skills and techniques folk employed to survive back in the day and are still used now.

Too funny.. I just read it.. now im stupid... thanks alot..

[archangle]

life". information changes" is probably a requirement for this universe. Life seems to be patterns in the series of events we call the universe. There really is no reasonable reason to assume that our life, or "events" is not part of a larger life form ... "larger series of events".

There is no bearded guy in the sky that went "Poof there it is.". It is more reasonable to say if we are part of a larger life form, it started with the universe.

Like m-theory, there is no need to talk about before untill we can make more observations. There is only now.

The funny thing is that most of the people that objectively see religion as a man made institution that does bad things at times may believe in something. Those that hate religion and do nothing but mock other people seem to have a axe to grind. Maybe they got popped in the arse or something. But their opinions should be taken in that light.

[Cato]

Who created the creator? How did the creator do it? Can any predictions be made with the theory? Does the creator hypothesis actually explain anything?

The idea adds complexity, creates more questions than it answers, and doesn't explain anything. For these reasons it should be discarded as unscientific.