@orathiac "@Maniac, what?? No. If we assume a naturalistic world, we can say with certainty that life of some kind has existed at some place and time elsewhere in the universe. We know you get organic molecules on asteroid/comets an in dust clouds around other stars, and we know they are neccesary for 'life as we know it' - we don't know how abiogenesis occurs (the first self-replicating cell, for example) - but we also know how likely lige is to evolve once abiogenesis has occured." - you really can't make that assumption. If the beginning of life required something simple like event (a) happening followed by event (b), then you could calculate the likelihood of those events happening in sequence is and hey-presto you could deduce life is everywhere. If life formation is complex and requires say 52 unique events to happen in sequence then I'll refer you to my answer about cards to yoyo - it would be rare. But we don't know if the events that led to life required 52 unique events or 52 million unique events so you could never assume that the events that led to life on earth would ever be replicated again (or before, or anywhere).

YoYo "Do you seriously think that aliens will use DNA as a basis for life? "

No. They will use star dust. Or Pixie dust. Or something magical. Duh.

The most primal and basic form of life would, almost by definition, not use DNA. DNA is too complicated for that. DNA just doesn't form automatically somewhere, with organism forming aorund them or however you had that in mind. The more likely thing to happen would be that the most basic form of life happens and then form DNA or similar as it 'evolves'..

Step & Yoyo - "The most primal and basic form of life would, almost by definition, not use DNA. " Do you seriously think that aliens will use DNA as a basis for life? "

DNA contains the biological instructions that make each species unique.All life needs a set of instructions to replicate. So it may not be DNA, but there has to be something like it. It would be as complex. Create a model of life regeneration without DNA. Oh wait. Man wants to recreate, so he will. He doesn't need science or cause.

@Maniac
That's with one deck though. Let's say that is the requirement for life to occur in one particular location. Now multply that by the endless number of planets that are shuffling these decks, much faster shuffling. Also, there are likely many ways that life can start as a carbon based life form. What about other forms of life that have been theorized? So really there are multiple way configurations that can lead to life in any given location. Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Hydrogen are 4 of the 5 most abundant elements in the universe, so there is a lot more shuffling situations than you think, and it's happening a lot faster than you think. Chemical reactions take nanoseconds, and occur continuously as long as there is fuel, which there is plenty of the universe.

@BOG

No it doesn't. Just because most life on earth use DNA does not mean it requires it. All life on Earth is intensely evolved into complex creatures. Even bacteria is super complex. But life likely had humble beginnings. Take the eye for example. It began as an empty hope lined with photoreceptors (or a sad, sad excuse for photorecptors) that could only tell the difference between light and dark. Over billions of years, that developing into being too see outlines of sillouettes, then dull fuzzy images, then color, then autofocus and whatnot. There is no reason that DNA wouldn't come from the same humble begginings, with a basic simplistic, heavily imperfect system of pumping out more of you.

Let's take my example of the organic compounds theory. So this system of loosely held together compounds could have a reproductive system made up of entirely of just a photo chemical that does chemical reactions. This chemical that allows light and air to react with other materials surrounding it to produce more of this chemical.

Obviously I don't know the answer but to say that DNA or something chemically equivalent just randomly happened is just dumb. If thats what it takes to produce life, then we statistically shouldn't be here today.

YoYo "then we statistically shouldn't be here today." Exactly the point.

So what you're saying is that I'm likely right and you're wrong. Ok, great, it was nice talking with you ^_^

It's a vague point. What exactly is your explanation?

I'm a little afraid you're going to give a particular answer, but we'll see where this goes..

That's @BOG.

To clarify, mine is that something completely random is formed that works in a less random way, making the odds much better that way. A little vague because I don't have the expertise to name it all.

And because the completely random thing works in a less random way, the proteins or whatever which would be formed would be less random as well and thus not an insanely small chance anymore.

@ BOG: "Maybe God did not create them"

wjessop's question concerns a scientific matter and therefore you should only answer it using facts and/or math, not religious opinion. Any opinion expressed without facts proves you are a religious zealot and should be ignored.

I don't like bigotry, ignorance or extremism coming from any side, Jamie.

I don't support silencing or shutting anyone down, if they're trying to engage in a civil way.

Win hearts and minds by discussion and reason, not by trashing other people's input, however disagreeable or simplistic you may deem their input to be.

I wish I had your patience, wjessop, truly I do.

And your bifurcation of science and religion is too simplistic and biased.

Plenty of well-regarded scientists see their scientific research as compatible with belief in a higher being.

Indeed in a discussion about alien life and other beings, the notion of a higher being is not irrelevant.

I guess it's just about making sure you use what resources of patience you have -- that's why I didn't participate in the climate chabge denial thread :).

*you have, in a targeted way.

"Indeed in a discussion about alien life and other beings, the notion of a higher being is not irrelevant."

Entirely true; however if you are willing to take Maniac's (valid) analogy of 52 cards in a certain order - then you can assume, 'well it was a miracle, and if God did it once he/she could have done it any number of times' - thus regardless of Maniacs actual calculation (which we are discussing with some differing views) the arguement 'God can do it if he/she wants to' is pretty much the end of the discussion.

If you want to start a theological discussion, that's fine.

Alternative if your God isn't an interventionist one, then you can have a meta-physical discussion regarding the purpose of the Universe; if his/her creation was one which was destined to create life. This is not really the same discussion either.

Jamie - "Any opinion expressed without facts proves you are a religious zealot and should be ignored."

But what if God is real?

@Maniac - NO.

8 x 10^67 assumes a random shuffling of the cards.

We know for a fact that the shuffling is not random, it follows clear procedural rules. (ie: Physics&Chemistry) Which leads to emergent phenomena (Biology&Sociology)

Now we only have evidence that this has happened once. But we know a bit about pseudo cells aswell (environments which naturally form which separate their internal environment from the external; see: http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life particularily the end of this video)

Do you make the same claims about the existence of tar with cell-like structures?

God exists.
God doesn't exist

It is a 50-50 chance

Pascal's wager

@ BOG: "But what if God is real?"

But what if man-made climate change is real?

"It is a 50-50 chance"

Prove that the odds are exactly 50%. Show the math.

Pascal's wager is foolish because an omniscient god would know you were only gambling and did not have 100% faith.

BOG are you offering 2 to 1 odds on the non existance of God? Is that any particluar god or some being whose name is God? They sound like pretty good odds if it's a being named God. Providing the being has the attributes usually associated with a god.

Damn, I got lost there.

Can you help, before I can work out the odds of whether God exists I need to know what a god is?

You don't understand the wager.

Too "BOG are you offering 2 to 1 odds on the non existance of God?"
God Exists. God doesn't exist. That sounds like a 50-50 bet to me.

@ BOG: I understand Pascal's wager well enough. It contends that even if a person does not believe in God, they should behave as though they do believe in God, because that way if it turns out that they were wrong to lack faith, the fact that they have behaved in a faithful manner will mean they'll probably get into heaven. It's false wager because the person would be "wagering" without real faith in God. If they truly, fully believed in God, they would not feel they were gambling.