By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
dsgrue3 on 19 December 2012
Edit Thread
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:
I think the answer to that question is obvious. A better question is where does the evidence lead us? Does the evidence or lack thereof point toward a supernatural being, or no? I think the answer to that question is obvious as well, but perhaps that's just me.

To somebody who believes in God, the immense complexity of the natural world, the amazing interconnected systems that allow all levels of life to function, the interdependence of plant and animal life, the necessity for such precision in the distance of the earth from the sun, exact composition of the atmosphere, necessity of magnetic poles to repel deadly cosmic radiation, and the countless other exact specifications necessary for life that exist on earth add up to an unsurmountable pile of evidence for intelligent design. You see it otherwise. I can see one of those things as being mathematically possible via some equation, but when you add all of them up, there is no way in my view that the entirity of the systems on this life sustaining planet could possibly happen by random chance. This is why it really depends on what evidence you look at it, and how you interpret that evidence.

I agree it's all very spectacularly unlikely, which is why we haven't discovered life elsewhere. I think if you seek to find something, you will find it. 

We have described the process by which we formed, non-organic matter + energy lead to an organic molecule then countless generations of evolution occurred eventually leading to us as humans.

I can't see how you support Intelligent Design when 99% of species that have existed are extinct. What a gigantic waste. The vastness of the Universe again points to a complete waste and it's increasing in waste each second by more than the speed of light. 

You see life as the reason for the conditions, but it is the conditions that are the reason for life. 

 

GameOver22 said:
dsgrue3 said:

 

No doubt. Perhaps the Drake equation wasn't he best example. Goldilocks planets are better.

 

Yeah, I can see that, but it seems some researchers seriously questions if that's a valid measure of whether life can develop becasue there are other planetary factors to take into account. I would agree with them......at least if you want an accurate term for the probability of life developing.


Yeah, it seems to be the very basic requirement. Gotta start somewhere I guess. Add some probabilities for atmospheric stability, probabilities of the planet having all the necessary elements to sustain life, etc.