So your an Athiest

[Whateverist]

There is a lot of chemical information in the cell. Information comes from intelligence as far as we know.

Wrong.  Information -as in statements about the way things are or how they work- come from creatures like us which use symbolic language.  But the relationships which our statements encapsulate are not dependent upon language or any form of intelligence.  The facts regarding how things stand are entirely separate from the language used to describe them.  So when you say "information" are your referring to the facts themselves, or, their spoken or written descriptions?

You're muddling up several phenomenon here.

[AAA]

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Yes life exists in places you would not expect to find it. But extremophiles are more complex than normal bacteria, so even if you believed in evolution these would certainly not have been able to be the first that evolved. I think the most broad definition of life that could be given is something capable of taking molecules from the environment and use them to produce accurate copies of itself. I don't think I'm being narrow minded, and I want to discover new things. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I won't be a good researcher. Look at virtually every researcher before the 1800s.

Whether or not that uncited claim is true is not above debate, but the possibilities they imply for life under a broader range of conditions remain strong.

That you call them "extremophiles" is rather interesting, considering how life, when it first began 4 billion years ago, did so under similar conditions - the atmosphere and ocean was choked with volcanic activity and no oxygen. It was hardly extreme to these life forms, which made do with what they had available. That's what life does.

[AAA]

Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I won't be a good researcher. Look at virtually every researcher before the 1800s.

Not because you are a Christian. Because you don't accept the most basic biological facts due to your religious beliefs.

No I don't deny the facts, I just have a different interpretation of them. If we don't allow discussion of the scientific evidence, then we will never get closer to truth.

---

Whether or not that uncited claim is true is not above debate, but the possibilities they imply for life under a broader range of conditions remain strong.

That you call them "extremophiles" is rather interesting, considering how life, when it first began 4 billion years ago, did so under similar conditions - the atmosphere and ocean was choked with volcanic activity and no oxygen. It was hardly extreme to these life forms, which made do with what it had available. That's what life does.

Yeah, but I don't think life could form under those conditions. It obviously can live there now, but we don't know if abiogenesis could occur there. They would need to have very rigid peptidoglycan walls to prevent the degradation of any nucleotide chains that somehow formed. These complicated cell walls require enzymes to form. They would also need metabolism that allowed them to convert the toxic chemicals around them into substances that they could use, and have a way to incorporate them into themselves. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

---

I just want to point out that the beliefs of scientists are completely irrelevant to the work that they do. Sir Isaac Newton was a practicing alchemist as well as a mathematician and physicist, but it's his work in the latter fields in which he made the greatest contribution. Scientists like everyone else have to show their work, or it doesn't mean a damn.

Agreed

[Redbeard The Pink]

It looks like what we're going back and forth about here is the Fine Tuning argument, and here's the problem I have with that (maybe it's already been covered): what the fuck is the Universe actually fine tuned for? If it's supposed to be fine tuned for life, then whoever did it did a piss-poor job, considering the sheer volume and mass of the Universe versus how much life there is. The Universe is producing a pitifully small amount of life, so if that's its job, it's fucking up big time.


Looking at what's actually in the Universe, it looks a lot more like it's fine tuned to produce empty space with occasional blips of plasma, rock, and/or gas. Life barely clings to the scantest of perches, while most of the Universe would kill anything instantly. Instantly.


Hell, not even our planet is finely tuned for life, especially not human life. There's so much stuff here that can kill you, much of which is completely outside the spectrum of our senses (radiation and natural gas, for example).

[AAA]

Our experience tells us that information comes from intelligence, and complex specific machines come from intelligence.

Um, no it doesn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole...on_paradox

I have to be honest that I understand biology and chemistry much better than physics. But I read the article, and it seems  to be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) that information that results from waves can be consumed by black holes. I don't really see how this goes against the premise that information only arises from intelligence. I think that maybe I should refine my statement and say that irregular/sequential information arises from intelligence. Geometrical information occurs in nature, but it isn't the same thing.

[AAA]

It looks like what we're going back and forth about here is the Fine Tuning argument, and here's the problem I have with that (maybe it's already been covered): what the fuck is the Universe actually fine tuned for? If it's supposed to be fine tuned for life, then whoever did it did a piss-poor job, considering the sheer volume and mass of the Universe versus how much life there is. The Universe is producing a pitifully small amount of life, so if that's its job, it's fucking up big time.


Looking at what's actually in the Universe, it looks a lot more like it's fine tuned to produce empty space with occasional blips of plasma, rock, and/or gas. Life barely clings to the scantest of perches, while most of the Universe would kill anything instantly. Instantly.


Hell, not even our planet is finely tuned for life, especially not human life. There's so much stuff here that can kill you, much of which is completely outside the spectrum of our senses (radiation and natural gas, for example).

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.

[Whateverist]

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.

Or maybe it makes no more sense to ask this question than it does to ask why paint is only applied in some places and not the on the entire canvas in Jackson Pollack's paintings. For that matter perhaps the deity that 'created' the cosmos (that just feels so silly to write) just shits galaxies as part of its life cycle. So no intention involved. But think what you like.

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.

It is like looking at a winning lotto ticket after the fact and marveling at the presence of so many winning numbers. How wonderful for us that the very planet on which our species evolved just happens to have the necessary Goldilocks qualities. Who would've thunk it?

[LastPoet]

He forget that the conditions of our planet at the time the first lifeforms arose werent suitible for us. Neither the actual conditions would be suitible for those early lifeforms.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Can you provide immunological or wider medical data to support your above claim please?

Thank you.

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.