Intelligent Design

[ApeNotKillApe]

I'd like you to consider how many people throughout history have died very painful deaths for no other reason than that an organ that they didn't need in the first place became infected.

The number of people that died from infections of impacted wisdom teeth (because we have a gene for more teeth than out jaws can handle, an atavism from our ancestors with bigger jaws), dwarfs the number of people that died from appendicitis.

That's saying something, considering that appendicitis is still pretty common, and on an unrelated note, most commonly affects children. Good work, Jesus.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Seriously?  We're going with "highly unlikely".

Do you want to supply a link to these mathematical models?

Planetary systems around stars seem to be the rule, not the exception as was thought in some circles until not too long ago.

So far we have discovered around 1300 planets outside our solar system.

Seems those mathematical models are incorrect.

Who cares if we found planets outside the solar system. It is fine tuning of the universe, not fine tuning of the solar system. 
You should read the book The Privelaged Planet, or watch the documentary, which describes how rare the conditions that permit life. Obviously rare and highly unlikely arguments aren't always good, but it's still interesting.

Here's a couple articles about the cosmological constant.

1. [Susskind2005] Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design, Little, Brown and Company, New York, 2005.
   
   
2. http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/cosmo-constant.php
   

People seem to have this concept backwards.
There is no rare conditions that can permit life. This is false concept. Life evolves in such a manner so that it can survive in a given environment - this is what evolution states. Adjusting to the environment. The environment is not what adjusts itself to facilitate life.

Am I right? I hope I am.

[The Valkyrie]

Seriously?  We're going with "highly unlikely".

Do you want to supply a link to these mathematical models?

Planetary systems around stars seem to be the rule, not the exception as was thought in some circles until not too long ago.

So far we have discovered around 1300 planets outside our solar system.

Seems those mathematical models are incorrect.

Who cares if we found planets outside the solar system. It is fine tuning of the universe, not fine tuning of the solar system. 
You should read the book The Privelaged Planet, or watch the documentary, which describes how rare the conditions that permit life. Obviously rare and highly unlikely arguments aren't always good, but it's still interesting.

Here's a couple articles about the cosmological constant.

1. [Susskind2005] Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design, Little, Brown and Company, New York, 2005.
   
   
2. http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/cosmo-constant.php
   

You mentioned planet formation is incredibly unlikely.  I pointed out that it seems to be the rule rather than the exception.

Now we're moving the goalposts to life on other worlds.

We have discovered life on ONE planet, and that's likely because we've only explored ONE planet.

With all of our probes on Mars we've barely scratched the surface (pun intended) of that planet.

When they talk og the "goldilocks zone" where life is possible, they generally mean life as we know it.

Who knows what other forms life may take in the universe.  It will not be human and some may not be carbon based.

As an aside, we HAVE discovered the building blocks of life on meteors that are billions of years old.

[Whateverist]

What's the best way to refute the argument that we were intelligently designed? 

I wouldn't care to get more specific than to acknowledge that the 'method' of our refinement is certainly efficacious.  Natural selection is to be congratulated .. I guess.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Who cares if we found planets outside the solar system. It is fine tuning of the universe, not fine tuning of the solar system. 
You should read the book The Privelaged Planet, or watch the documentary, which describes how rare the conditions that permit life. Obviously rare and highly unlikely arguments aren't always good, but it's still interesting.

Here's a couple articles about the cosmological constant.

1. [Susskind2005] Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design, Little, Brown and Company, New York, 2005.
   
   
2. http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/cosmo-constant.php
   

People seem to have this concept backwards.
There is no rare conditions that can permit life. This is false concept. Life evolves in such a manner so that it can survive in a given environment - this is what evolution states. Adjusting to the environment. The environment is not what adjusts itself to facilitate life.

Am I right? I hope I am.

Okay, since there was no objection, I'll assume I was right.

But this then naturally gives rise to another question:
Why aren't there life on another planet which is as old as earth?
I remember asking this question to my teacher when I was in 10th grade and he replied that it was due to the extreme conditions in another planets, like say, mars.

Isn't that getting the concept backwards again?
Logically, according to a planet like say, mars, our planet have extreme conditions and yet is able to facilitate life.
Furthermore, isn't saying that there is an absence of life in another planet like say mars, is due to extreme environmental conditions implying that the environment is what adjusts itself to facilitate life? Which is getting the concept backwards again?

Stimbo replied to this question of mine question as

we don't know.

I have to ask though, if there is no life in other planets that are as old as earth then doesn't that experimentally prove that life doesn't adjust itself to the environment?

Disclaimer: I'm not tricking you into believing or agreeing into something.

[The Grand Nudger]

People seem to have this concept backwards.
There is no rare conditions that can permit life. This is false concept. Life evolves in such a manner so that it can survive in a given environment - this is what evolution states. Adjusting to the environment. The environment is not what adjusts itself to facilitate life.

Am I right? I hope I am.

You are.  The puddle may think the hole is a perfect fit for itself, but the puddle would be wrong.  

But this then naturally gives rise to another question:
Why aren't there life on another planet which is as old as earth?
I remember asking this question to my teacher when I was in 10th grade and he replied that it was due to the extreme conditions in another planets, like say, mars.

Life like ours would not exist where the conditions did not allow it.  Ours is the only kind we know of.  Amusingly, we may fail to recognize life unlike our own where it does exist.  No point of reference.

[KevinM1]

Given a sample size of one - our planet - to say anything about life in the universe beyond what we know about what's on our planet is idiotic. We've had virtually no up close observation of other bodies.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Given a sample size of one - our planet - to say anything about life in the universe beyond what we know about what's on our planet is idiotic.  We've had virtually no up close observation of other bodies.

Speak for yourself.

[The Valkyrie]

Given a sample size of one - our planet - to say anything about life in the universe beyond what we know about what's on our planet is idiotic.  We've had virtually no up close observation of other bodies.

Speak for yourself.

Oh, go and evolve!

[AAA]

Who cares if we found planets outside the solar system. It is fine tuning of the universe, not fine tuning of the solar system. 
You should read the book The Privelaged Planet, or watch the documentary, which describes how rare the conditions that permit life. Obviously rare and highly unlikely arguments aren't always good, but it's still interesting.

Here's a couple articles about the cosmological constant.

1. [Susskind2005] Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design, Little, Brown and Company, New York, 2005.
   
   
2. http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/cosmo-constant.php
   

People seem to have this concept backwards.
There is no rare conditions that can permit life. This is false concept. Life evolves in such a manner so that it can survive in a given environment - this is what evolution states. Adjusting to the environment. The environment is not what adjusts itself to facilitate life.

Am I right? I hope I am.

Life doesn't have the kind of plasticity that you seem to think it does. If it could adapt to a given environment, then it would live on almost all planets