Abiogenesis is impossible

[Zen Badger]

And what evidence do you have that suggests that the universe appears to be designed to support life?

Because the vast majority of it is utterly inimical to life.

for starters on the macro level: earth resides in what's is a safe spot in the milky ways galactic habitable zone which a narrow ring that encircles a spiral arm type galaxy. this ring area is protect from the galactic core radiation and where a variety of heavy elements and isotopes are available that advance life requires, however not all areas within the ring can support life due to radiation originating from supernovas, spiral arms, dense molecular clouds and super-giant stars. so only about 1% of U's planets would meet this one basic criteria (extrapolate from the milky way data). this of course doesn't eliminate the chance development originating from a naturalistic model but certain reducing the possibilities. however, all the galaxies that don't support life are actually needed to support earthly life within the creation model. God doesn't create without a purpose.
http://space.about.com/od/frequentlyaske...Galaxy.htm

How do you know that other galaxies don't support life?

[Bob Kelso]

for starters on the macro level: earth resides in what's is a safe spot in the milky ways galactic habitable zone which a narrow ring that encircles a spiral arm type galaxy. this ring area is protect from the galactic core radiation and where a variety of heavy elements and isotopes are available that advance life requires, however not all areas within the ring can support life due to radiation originating from supernovas, spiral arms, dense molecular clouds and super-giant stars. so only about 1% of U's planets would meet this one basic criteria (extrapolate from the milky way data). this of course doesn't eliminate the chance development originating from a naturalistic model but certain reducing the possibilities. however, all the galaxies that don't support life are actually needed to support earthly life within the creation model. God doesn't create without a purpose.
http://space.about.com/od/frequentlyaske...Galaxy.htm

How do you know that other galaxies don't support life?

[Angrboda]

And what evidence do you have that suggests that the universe appears to be designed to support life?

Because the vast majority of it is utterly inimical to life.

for starters on the macro level: earth resides in what's is a safe spot in the milky ways galactic habitable zone which a narrow ring that encircles a spiral arm type galaxy. this ring area is protect from the galactic core radiation and where a variety of heavy elements and isotopes are available that advance life requires, however not all areas within the ring can support life due to radiation originating from supernovas, spiral arms, dense molecular clouds and super-giant stars. so only about 1% of U's planets would meet this one basic criteria (extrapolate from the milky way data). this of course doesn't eliminate the chance development originating from a naturalistic model but certain reducing the possibilities. however, all the galaxies that don't support life are actually needed to support earthly life within the creation model. God doesn't create without a purpose.
http://space.about.com/od/frequentlyaske...Galaxy.htm

Zen's question was about 'life', not about "earthly life." Giving evidence that earthly life could only exist in a narrow band is irrelevant to whether the universe is tuned for life in general. So you gave an answer to the wrong question. "Fail."

On top of that, even if you had answered the right question, you'd have been supporting Zen's point that, because so little of the universe is suitable for life, it doesn't appear particularly well tuned to produce life.

Double fail.

[snowtracks]

---

for starters on the macro level: earth resides in what's is a safe spot in the milky ways galactic habitable zone which a narrow ring that encircles a spiral arm type galaxy. this ring area is protect from the galactic core radiation and where a variety of heavy elements and isotopes are available that advance life requires, however not all areas within the ring can support life due to radiation originating from supernovas, spiral arms, dense molecular clouds and super-giant stars. so only about 1% of U's planets would meet this one basic criteria (extrapolate from the milky way data). this of course doesn't eliminate the chance development originating from a naturalistic model but certain reducing the possibilities. however, all the galaxies that don't support life are actually needed to support earthly life within the creation model. God doesn't create without a purpose.
http://space.about.com/od/frequentlyaske...Galaxy.htm

---

Zen's question was about 'life', not about "earthly life." Giving evidence that earthly life could only exist in a narrow band is irrelevant to whether the universe is tuned for life in general. So you gave an answer to the wrong question. "Fail."

On top of that, even if you had answered the right question, you'd have been supporting Zen's point that, because so little of the universe is suitable for life, it doesn't appear particularly well tuned to produce life.

Double fail.

the only life known is earthly life. the U. is inimical to life which rails against chance occurrence.
the U. has been designed exclusively for human being purposes. when that is finished, the U. will be destroyed by fire: "That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat." but since it's purpose is for human beings, they themselves will continue existence. after 13 billion years, it appears we are on the very edge of the U's destruction.

[Chas]

And what evidence do you have that suggests that the universe appears to be designed to support life?

Because the vast majority of it is utterly inimical to life.

for starters on the macro level: earth resides in what's is a safe spot in the milky ways galactic habitable zone which a narrow ring that encircles a spiral arm type galaxy. this ring area is protect from the galactic core radiation and where a variety of heavy elements and isotopes are available that advance life requires, however not all areas within the ring can support life due to radiation originating from supernovas, spiral arms, dense molecular clouds and super-giant stars. so only about 1% of U's planets would meet this one basic criteria (extrapolate from the milky way data). this of course doesn't eliminate the chance development originating from a naturalistic model but certain reducing the possibilities. however, all the galaxies that don't support life are actually needed to support earthly life within the creation model. God doesn't create without a purpose.
http://space.about.com/od/frequentlyaske...Galaxy.htm

You have the cart before the horse. There is life here because there can be life here and there can't be life in environments that are too hostile.


No planning, no design.

[snowtracks]

How do you know that other galaxies don't support life?

a typical galaxy cluster contains in excess of 10,000 closely packed galaxies (mostly giant or supergiant in size) that blast their surrounding environment with deadly radiation; whereas, the milky way resides in a tiny cluster of galaxies of about 40 which are small or dwarf in size.

[tor]

a typical galaxy cluster contains in excess of 10,000 closely packed galaxies (mostly giant or supergiant in size) that blast their surrounding environment with deadly radiation; whereas, the milky way resides in a tiny cluster of galaxies of about 40 which are small or dwarf in size.

Which completely disproves intelligent design. Who the fuck would put all those poisonous galaxies together? Unless you want to make whole universe lifeless with exception of small portions of it.

Sounds more like big bang exploded with zero design.

[Bob Kelso]

a typical galaxy cluster contains in excess of 10,000 closely packed galaxies (mostly giant or supergiant in size) that blast their surrounding environment with deadly radiation; whereas, the milky way resides in a tiny cluster of galaxies of about 40 which are small or dwarf in size.

So in other words you don't know.

[snowtracks]

a typical galaxy cluster contains in excess of 10,000 closely packed galaxies (mostly giant or supergiant in size) that blast their surrounding environment with deadly radiation; whereas, the milky way resides in a tiny cluster of galaxies of about 40 which are small or dwarf in size.

Which completely disproves intelligent design. Who the fuck would put all those poisonous galaxies together? Unless you want to make whole universe lifeless with exception of small portions of it.

Sounds more like big bang exploded with zero design.

if human are to exist, this U's enormous mass is critical: one reason is that with less density, stars and planets wouldn't form. the expansion rate would be so rapid that gravity wouldn't have the opportunity to pull together the gas and dust to form them. God doesn't create anything that doesn't serve a purpose.

[Whateverist]

God doesn't create anything that doesn't serve a purpose.

Thank goodness we have a theist on these forums who is both adept at science and privy to the intentions of God almighty.

It must make it so much easier to understand the world in which you live when you start out assuming the answers you intend to find.