Inhabitable planet without life?

achilles12604 · Post by **achilles12604** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:39 am

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070425/ap_ ... ble_planet

This question is aimed at those who claim life certainly rose on its own, without guidance. Specifically if you feel life MUST have occured because it was the path of least resistance (vs nothing, or lifeless masses), I would like your opinions.

What if we discover an inhabitable plant without any life on it at all? Would this give rise to the theory of a guiding hand assisting life on this planet? What are the implications for the theories of those who reject God's guiding life?

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:10 am

{{{{off topic warning}}}}}

Cathar1950 wrote: I need coffee. My cafe makes the best coffee.

No it doesn't - I do!

acamp1 · Post by **acamp1** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:36 am

The bottom line I am getting so far is that unless a planet had EXACTLY the same specifics as Earth, we should not expect life to have appeared on said planet?

Certainly not. The planet doesn't have to be exactly like ours. We just don't know enough about the key factors of life on this world to know which are essential to life on others.

Could be the water. Could be the moon. Could be the preponderance of certain minerals or chemicals. Could be a combination of all those things.

Of course, the more a planet is like our earth the better chance it has of hosting life. At least earth-like life.

Bottom line: This world is all we know. And that, just barely.

olivergringold · Post by **olivergringold** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:36 am

Because we shouldn't presume that there is or isn't life there. Saying that life can only arise on planets exactly like ours is as arbitrary as it is foolish. Unless and until we can travel 20 lightyears, the jury is out. Potential Life 1, Intelligent Design 0.

achilles12604 · Post by **achilles12604** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:49 am

acamp1 wrote:
The bottom line I am getting so far is that unless a planet had EXACTLY the same specifics as Earth, we should not expect life to have appeared on said planet?
Certainly not. The planet doesn't have to be exactly like ours. We just don't know enough about the key factors of life on this world to know which are essential to life on others.

Could be the water. Could be the moon. Could be the preponderance of certain minerals or chemicals. Could be a combination of all those things.

Of course, the more a planet is like our earth the better chance it has of hosting life. At least earth-like life.

Bottom line: This world is all we know. And that, just barely.

Ok cool. Then with this line of thinking we can return to my OP without sidestepping distractions.

achilles12604 · Post by **achilles12604** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:51 am

olivergringold wrote:Because we shouldn't presume that there is or isn't life there. Saying that life can only arise on planets exactly like ours is as arbitrary as it is foolish. Unless and until we can travel 20 lightyears, the jury is out. Potential Life 1, Intelligent Design 0.

Just a side note, even if aliens were discovered, this would not disprove God of even Christianity. So your 1-0 score isn't really valid.

olivergringold · Post by **olivergringold** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:54 am

It's a perfectly fair statement because Intelligent Design states that the Earth is so special, and the creatures on it so specialer, that any potential for non-human life is miserably small, and also that humans are the supreme life-form in the Universe, excepting Magic Man.

If said organisms were physically or intellectually superior to us in any way or degree, either in general or for their environment, we'd be up to 3-0. 2 Because they exist and 3 for being better adapted to life.

achilles12604 · Post by **achilles12604** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:00 am

olivergringold wrote:It's a perfectly fair statement because Intelligent Design states that the Earth is so special, and the creatures on it so specialer, that any potential for non-human life is miserably small, and also that humans are the supreme life-form in the Universe, excepting Magic Man.

If said organisms were physically or intellectually superior to us in any way or degree, either in general or for their environment, we'd be up to 3-0. 2 Because they exist and 3 for being better adapted to life.

What source for ID have you been reading? (I think I can guess but I'll ask first)

olivergringold · Post by **olivergringold** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:08 am

Dwane Gish, Kent Hovind, etc.

achilles12604 · Post by **achilles12604** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:26 am

olivergringold wrote:Dwane Gish, Kent Hovind, etc.

Yea I figured as much.

Try Francis Collins "The Language of God" or Falk " Comming to peace with science."

These individuals are much more realistic in their views of religion and science. I follow more along their line of thinking.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:20 am

achilles12604 wrote:The bottom line I am getting so far is that unless a planet had EXACTLY the same specifics as Earth, we should not expect life to have appeared on said planet?

So why do the scientists in the article make such misleading claims?

I would say that unless we had a planet with a stable climate, multicelluar life would not exist.