There seems to be a lot of debate on this forum recently about the matter of God vs. Science. There hasn't been much talk about scientific support for the existence of God, so here is some scientific information that at least IMPLIES the existence of a creator (I've taken the facts about physical/chemical constants from a science website). Hard headed scientific formalists, get your flaming skills ready for a workout.

The universe seems curiously designed to have one single ultimate purpose: to give rise to life. It's something that is geared into the fundamental nature of the universe's "settings", so even though life randomly emerged on this planet, it would have eventually done so just because of the way things eventually develop according to the properties of physical things. Chaos inevitibly gives rise to order, atoms that arrange randomly in the most useful form develop into organic molecules, organic molecules develop into amino acids, amino acids develop into... etc etc etc, until you reach the incredibly sophisticated development of genetic structures. Our genes exist for one single purpose, to keep copying themselves. This has nothing to do with conscious design, it's a result of the properties of the universe, and it's a little odd when you think about it. Why is there this fierce inbuilt drive towards things surviving? It's almost as if the universe is trying to become conscious of itself.

But when you look at the way in which the physical and chemical "constants" of the universe are so precisely tuned to allow life and the universe itself to exist, it's just plain bizarre. If you want a universe to exist and be capable of supporting life, then each of these constants needs to be exactly the way they are in our universe, or it just wouldn't work. Here are some of those constants (this was first put forward by the astrophysicist and cosmologist Brandon Carter from Cambridge University, not some religious nut):

- Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, "stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster."

- The weak nuclear force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, and not been in the exact balance it is to the masses of the electron, proton, and neutron, the universe would have started out as either all hydrogen or all helium, instead of the 75/25 ratio that we had. If this had happened, without hydrogen there would have been no organic chemistry, no life (making water would have been impossible for example).

- The strong nuclear force is decided by the ratio between quark masses and the mass of the proton. A more powerful strong nuclear strong (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons--yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars, since deuterium could never have formed.

- If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is--roughly twice the mass of an electron--then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Say good-bye to chemistry as we know it--and to life.

- The very nature of water--so vital to life--is something of a mystery (a point noticed by one of the forerunners of anthropic reasoning in the nineteenth century, Harvard biologist Lawrence Henderson). Unique amongst the molecules, water is lighter in its solid than liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and earth would now be covered with solid ice. This property in turn is traceable to the unique properties of the hydrogen atom.

- The synthesis of carbon--the vital core of all organic molecules--on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an astonishing coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism. This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the centre of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-12--allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10^17 seconds long. If the fine structure constant had been any different, carbon would not have formed in significant amounts, and if that happened, we wouldn't have carbon based structure (pretty much all life as we know it).



The more you look at how precisely fine tuned the universe is so that stars don't burn out too fast, that nuclei and complex atoms can form and be stable, and so on, it's just fucking bizarre (and astronomically improbably) that things worked out so perfectly. Any skeptics want to take a pop at this?

I've always thought that nature sort of proved god. I mean, what the hell are the chances that the universe collects in the way that it did and we are here now discussing it? Then the seemingly perfection found in math. How the hell could chaos bring about such constants and laws? I know it's possible, but it does make you think.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I mean, what the hell are the chances that the universe collects in the way that it did and we are here now discussing it?

I hate it when people think about it like that. Try and think of it like this, something had to happen. For instance if you get a piece of paper with a grid on it and are told to start from one square on one side and go to the another side you can go hundreds of different paths. Thats what evoulotion is. See whats annoying is people say the chance of human life is like 0.0000000001 (or whatever that was just a guess at the percentage.) But thats not it the chance of human life is 1/1 because we are here the chance of it happening AGAIN is 0.0000000001.

Anyway thats how i look at it.

I see your point, but look at it like this for a sec: either this is the only universe, or there are an infinite number of universes. If this is the only one, then even though obviously the Big Bang had to go *some* way, when you look at the way it did go, isn't it just... spectacularly lucky that it turned out this way? Really, really, really specacularly lucky, so lucky that you have to start asking some questions. Or otherwise, let's say that there are an infinite number of possible universes. In that case, this is just one particular configuration. But the idea of an infinite set of universes is starting to sound a lot like Hinduismm, and for that matter the existence of an infinite number of universes starts raising a whole set of questions on its own. For example, what is the "ultraverse", or framework that all of these universes are operating in, and what are its properties? The idea of something large enough that it contains all possible universes, powerful enough to give birth to them all, and infinite enough in nature to encompass them all... this starts to sound a lot like a definition of god.

quote:Originally posted by Fai1safe:

I hate it when people think about it like that. Try and think of it like this, something had to happen. For instance if you get a piece of paper with a grid on it and are told to start from one square on one side and go to the another side you can go hundreds of different paths. Thats what evoulotion is. See whats annoying is people say the chance of human life is like 0.0000000001 (or whatever that was just a guess at the percentage.) But thats not it the chance of human life is 1/1 because we are here the chance of it happening AGAIN is 0.0000000001.

Anyway thats how i look at it.



Well I look at it like this. If there is a completely clean slate again for the universe to begin again, what is the likelihood that we are here?

Okay let's pick away at the thesis at the heart of your post, because the rest of your post can be summarized as: "If the universe was different than life as we know it could not exist", which is not saying anything other than the obvious.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

The universe seems curiously designed to have one single ultimate purpose: to give rise to life.

Two points you need to address:

1) The universe is friggin' huge. Lot's of galaxies, lots of solar systems, lots of planets. We know of only one planet with life. How can you thus conclude that the universe is designed to give rise to life?

2) How do we know that if the universe was different that it couldn't support some kind of life? Certainly if the laws of physics changed than we couldn't exist, but is it not conceivable that another type of life could exist? In fact is in not reasonable that in the infinite combinations of hypothetical universes, there could be at least one that supports life just as well or even better than ours? Isaac Asimov explores this in The Gods Themselves.

quote:1) The universe is friggin' huge. Lot's of galaxies, lots of solar systems, lots of planets. We know of only one planet with life. How can you thus conclude that the universe is designed to give rise to life?

When I gave my reasons why the universe is geared towards producing life, I talked about the fundamental principles of how physical phenomena develop. That applies just as easily in our corner of the universe as it does to any other.

quote:2) How do we know that if the universe was different that it couldn't support some kind of life? Certainly if the laws of physics changed than we couldn't exist, but is it not conceivable that another type of life could exist? In fact is in not reasonable that in the infinite combinations of hypothetical universes, there could be at least one that supports life just as well or even better than ours? Isaac Asimov explores this in The Gods Themselves.

If nuclei were unstable, or complex atoms were unstable, life couldn't exist, there would be no building blocks to make it from. It would be like trying to build a house without bricks. And I wasn't suggesting that this is the only possible universe to support life. I was trying to point out that the design of this universe seems to have been deliberate, and even if not then the ultimate structure of the universe seems to be divine anyhow (or else our lonely universe was an INSANELY lucky fluke).

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 04-14-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

When I gave my reasons why the universe is geared towards producing life, I talked about the fundamental principles of how physical phenomena develop. That applies just as easily in our corner of the universe as it does to any other.

You've missed the point. To rephrase what you've just said: the fundamental principles of how physical phenomena develop applies just as easily in the rest of the universe as it does in our little corner.

So the vast majority of cases where the 'fundamental principles' apply leads to no life. Thus the correlation between the 'fundamental principles' and life is low, and should not be used as an argument for design.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

If nuclei were unstable, or complex atoms were unstable, life couldn't exist, there would be no building blocks to make it from. It would be like trying to build a house without bricks.

You assume that stability could not exist under a different set of rules. Atomic configurations that are unstable under our universe's 'settings' could be stable under different 'settings'.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

And I wasn't suggesting that this is the only possible universe to support life. I was trying to point out that the design of this universe seems to have been deliberate, and even if not then the ultimate structure of the universe seems to be divine anyhow (or else our lonely universe was an INSANELY lucky fluke).

You need to stop using the word 'seems'.

I would have thought that living in a solar system with 9 life-supporting planets would have been far more lucky than just the one.

Edit: I'm not trying to be hostile with the 'seems' complaint. The word weakens a statement by adding doubt that there is any evidence.

[This message has been edited by Sarter (edited 04-14-2005).]

quote:You've missed the point. To rephrase what you've just said: the fundamental principles of how physical phenomena develop applies just as easily in the rest of the universe as it does in our little corner.

So the vast majority of cases where the 'fundamental principles' apply leads to no life. Thus the correlation between the 'fundamental principles' and life is low, and should not be used as an argument for design.

The fundamental principles are the same everywhere, the conditions in different parts of the universe is another matter, and the two have to interact to give rise to life. Where we happen to be, the conditions are just right, we are the right distance from the sun, we have water, we have an atmostphere etc. In other parts of the universe that do not display these conditions, life will not arise for obvious reasons.



quote:You assume that stability could not exist under a different set of rules. Atomic configurations that are unstable under our universe's 'settings' could be stable under different 'settings'.

I don't assume anything. I was responding to the statement "Certainly if the laws of physics changed...". If we set the roulette wheel of universal configuration rolling again, certainly some configurations would be condusive to life, but they would not be the expected observation, they would be the very rares ones. I guess what I did was misunderstand your point.



quote:You need to stop using the word 'seems'.

I would have thought that living in a solar system with 9 life-supporting planets would have been far more lucky than just the one.

Given the speculative nature of what I'm talking about, I feel using the word "seems" is appropriate, since I'm being honest I (or anyone else for that matter) don't really know what the fuck I'm talking about.

I'm not sure I understand your second comment though. Do you mean that if we lived in a universe created by intelligent design that we should find ourselves with other hospitable planets in our solar system? Because if so, there's no reason to assume that, the intelligent design I proposed would make the most sense if it was restricted to setting the starting conditions of the universe and letting it play out whatever way it ended up going. If that's not what you meant, then please clarify. I'm trying to get my brain on the Uberman sleep schedule, and I haven't had a normal nights sleep in days, so forgive the retard mentality.



[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 04-14-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I've always thought that nature sort of proved god. I mean, what the hell are the chances that the universe collects in the way that it did and we are here now discussing it? Then the seemingly perfection found in math. How the hell could chaos bring about such constants and laws? I know it's possible, but it does make you think.



Which is why the Bible tells us that NO MAN will be with excuse, regarding belief in God.

The evidence is not only in the faith, but in the creation itself.

Thanks, Imperfect.

This is a good thread, which is rare.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:



Well I look at it like this. If there is a completely clean slate again for the universe to begin again, what is the likelihood that we are here?

If it begins the same way this one did, then 1/1...the same causes will always have the same effect.

Various thoughts that have been entering my mind lately, in combination with some thoughts others have been sharing with me (this thread included), and also in combination with a very risky endeavor I plan to undertake tonight...may result in a massive overhaul of my very perception of the self and reality.

The happiness I have achieved has been done through intense introspection; searching into my own psyche to find my insecurities and fears and overcoming these demons. I thought I had rid myself of them all, but just a few days ago I started to feel one that I never had before...I'm almost afraid to confront this one, I'm still not even sure what it is.

It's eating away at me, and I have so many thoughts about it. Could this be a final step towards enlightenment? Perhaps a final revelation of sorts? Or is this demon deep inside just the door-keeper to a whole new area of my mind? I am more afraid of this than anything I have come across in my life, but I must know what this problem is, and I must overcome it...coping will not suffice, coping is for the weak and down-trodden of the world, and I refuse to let something of this nature slide. Wish me luck, and hope I don't lose my sanity...or what little of it I have.

Sorry if you all feel this was off topic.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

If it begins the same way this one did, then 1/1...the same causes will always have the same effect.

I said clean slate. That means it doesn't start the same way, but in any which way the universe could start. We don't even know how our's started, so how can you be so sure that any other universe would start the same way?

We know too little about the universe to make any assumptions like "1/1".

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

...coping is for the weak and down-trodden of the world...

I think that was not only untrue, but unfair.

People deal with things differently, and though you do not see the merit of "coping" in YOUR life, it has a lot of merit in other people's.

Coping doesn't necessarily mean holding on to something for the rest of your existence in a manner which will not effect said existence...noticably.

When I had to give up my daughter, I did what I had to do to "cope"...I spent a lot of time alone, and focused on being a better mother to the daughter I did have.

I can only use myself as an example in this scenario, since it is the only example I have that can be understood fully.

I am very curious to know about this endeavor of yours, though...see you in the other life. *winks*

Offtopic, but Hexidecimal here is my two cents that you might be able to use. Whenever I'm preparing for something major like that (in my case it usually involves psychedelically aided meditation lol) I find it really damn valuable to get myself prepped in the right emotional state or things can go to hell in a handbasket very easily. One of the things I find very effective is to prep my unconscious by doing the following:

There is a program you can download on the internet called Sublime 2005 Elite Edition. It's a subliminal program that flashes any messages you choose on the screen for a split second, consciously you don't notice anything. You can use a preset messsage list or create your own. The one I find most useful has the following messages: "It is right for me to feel good" "I deserve to feel good" "My natural state is to feel good" "I enjoy feeling good" and "I can feel good all the time", set to flash every ten seconds. It might sound silly, but it has an observable effect on me, gets me into the right mood for doing any inner work on my myself. Anyway, just throwing it out there in case it might be of use.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Where we happen to be, the conditions are just right, we are the right distance from the sun, we have water, we have an atmostphere etc.

Let's say I flipped a million pennies in the air and let them land on a sidewalk. The pennies represent planets. The likelihood of any of the pennies landing on its side (and creating life) is quite low. Let's say that one of the pennies lands on its side because the conditions of the sidewalk were just right. Should I conclude that the penny landed on its side as a result of chance or as a result of design?

What I'm trying to say is that its a bit of a stretch to say life was designed if the conditions had to be just right. Is the Earth special? Yes! It is the only planet we know to have life. Is it something to get excited about? Yes! We all like life. But this in itself is no reason to conclude that there was a creator.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

I don't assume anything. I was responding to the statement "Certainly if the laws of physics changed...". If we set the roulette wheel of universal configuration rolling again, certainly some configurations would be condusive to life, but they would not be the expected observation, they would be the very rares ones.

We cannot assume that life-supporting configurations are very rare.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

I'm not sure I understand your second comment though. Do you mean that if we lived in a universe created by intelligent design that we should find ourselves with other hospitable planets in our solar system?

Precisely. Let us say there was a god and the god created the universe intentionally. So the god intended only the one planet to have life. But this also means the god intended the other planets to have no life. This is nothing but a grand waste of planets!

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Because if so, there's no reason to assume that, the intelligent design I proposed would make the most sense if it was restricted to setting the starting conditions of the universe and letting it play out whatever way it ended up going.

If I flipped my million pennies in the air instead of lying them on their side, I wouldn't be using intelligent design at all. I know that some of the pennies may land on their sides, but I would still be using chance.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Offtopic, but Hexidecimal here is my two cents that you might be able to use. Whenever I'm preparing for something major like that (in my case it usually involves psychedelically aided meditation lol) I find it really damn valuable to get myself prepped in the right emotional state or things can go to hell in a handbasket very easily. One of the things I find very effective is to prep my unconscious by doing the following:

There is a program you can download on the internet called Sublime 2005 Elite Edition. It's a subliminal program that flashes any messages you choose on the screen for a split second, consciously you don't notice anything. You can use a preset messsage list or create your own. The one I find most useful has the following messages: "It is right for me to feel good" "I deserve to feel good" "My natural state is to feel good" "I enjoy feeling good" and "I can feel good all the time", set to flash every ten seconds. It might sound silly, but it has an observable effect on me, gets me into the right mood for doing any inner work on my myself. Anyway, just throwing it out there in case it might be of use.

I went through said event...let's just say I'm not an atheist anymore.

No fucking way http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Dead serious. I like...well, I love to fucking mess with people's heads and such, but I do speak the truth occasionally.

The argument is circular.

It in essence says, 'the universe could not possibly be different, because if it were different, we couldn't be here to observe it': circular reasoning.

Not only is it a circular argument, but it does not even follow.

All those constants would produce life as we know it. Variations in those constant would hinder, life as we know it. But it is impossible to conclude that no other life form could exist, one that differs from our current perception, in those different conditions.

For example, life exists in extreme heat. Heat which seems to us inlivable conditions/ Organisms have even adapted, under our very own conditions, to use Nitrogen, not Oxygen, to survive. Thus, it is quite possible for life to exist in conditions differing from ours.

Philosophy answers this question, as it is clear science is unable to deal with it. You all are focusing too much on the improbability of life existing in this universe. But as was said before, the probability is 1/1. This seems simple but is quite complex.

If we happened to not exist because of the large improbability working against existence then what would there be? We would not exist and this conversation would be irrelevant. But we do exist, which makes this argument invalid. Speaking of what would happen if the slate were ‘wiped clean’ is too difficult to deal with for it is beyond understanding. Take this idea for example: you flipped a coin, chose heads and the coin landed on tails. Now you ask yourself, “What if I had chosen tails? Would it have then landed on heads?” Do you see the complication here? - It is impossible to know the answer to this question.

So we ask ourselves, what is the probability of our existence. It is 1/1 because if we don’t exist then there is nothing – not even thought. But if we do exist (which we seem to), then the question of probability is preposterous due to the aforementioned reason.

As to God vs. Science it must first be said that they are incompatible. The idea of god is in no way supported by science or the scientific method. As for the ‘evidence’ of probabilities and finely tuned universe we can again say that if we don’t exist here then there is nothing ‘here’, but there may be something existing over ‘there’ in the universe. The ‘finely tuned’ applies to our concept of life. We need these properties of electromagnetism and gravity to exist but others may not.

So, what are we left with? Confusion is all. The ideas in this post are as abstract as they come and are nearly impossible to explain. Sorry if it seemed incoherent and all over the place.

Well how about looking at it like this.

Either our universe is the only one that ever exists, and that when the Big Bang occurred it was just remarkably lucky that the universe turned out to have the precise parameters it does. This doesn't mean these parameters are the only ones that could have lead to life, nonetheless you have to admit it's very fortunate that this universe ended up having the characteristics listed above, seeing how this is the only one to ever exist.

The alternative is that our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes, and the particular universe we live in just so happens to be one of the ones that is stable, and capable of supporting life, which is how we are able to debate this in the first place. But the idea that our reality is just the tiniest portion of a supreme and infinite reality beyond our perception sounds like a highly religious statement doesn't it?

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Either our universe is the only one that ever exists, and that when the Big Bang occurred it was just remarkably lucky that the universe turned out to have the precise parameters it does. This doesn't mean these parameters are the only ones that could have lead to life, nonetheless you have to admit it's very fortunate that this universe ended up having the characteristics listed above, seeing how this is the only one to ever exist.

The word fortunate is subjective and highly suspect from a being that values its own life. By your argument, if somebody hated their own existence the universe would be unfortunate. I'm sure I could dig up such a person if pressed. If the universe cannot be both fortunate and unfortunate there is a contradiction. If the universe is both fortunate and unfortunate then we must admit that we cannot assume anything from our subjective opinions. Also, if the universe can be fortunate and unfortunate then it can also be neither (for example, my own opinion).

If the universe has characterics from a possible set, then as far as we know the universe can be random rather than intentional. From the above contradiction and Occam's Razor, I conclude that the universe has no creator.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

The alternative is that our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes, and the particular universe we live in just so happens to be one of the ones that is stable, and capable of supporting life, which is how we are able to debate this in the first place.

It's crazy how the universe we live in just so happens to be the one we live in. Of all the infinite universes, we just happened to exist in the one universe where we exist.

You might say that, if there are infinite universes, then there must be one where we exist and we have to be in that one. Whether that one, out of all the others, is somehow special enough to be worthy of a creator theory is subjective.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

But the idea that our reality is just the tiniest portion of a supreme and infinite reality beyond our perception sounds like a highly religious statement doesn't it?

It can also sound highly like a scientific statement. And lo, it was science that discovered the infinite reality beyond our perception that is our universe.

But honestly, if you want to be subjective about it and not try to justify it, then I really don't have a case. I cannot disprove a creator - it is a possibility. I would suggest that if you are inspired by the thought of an intended universe then you should keep on being inspired.

Well.. it's an interesting argument, here's my little problems with it.

First, there's the nature of constants. A constant, as I understand, (I'm in no way a sciencetist[I know I mispelt it]) is derived to make the missing bit. The constant, fits the equation, so it balances. Example of this is the Force of Gravity

F = ((M1*M2)/d^2)* G

Now, I might of gotten it wrong, been awhile since physics, not to sure about the distance squared. Now, that G, just works as a balance, it was created to fit the problem. The problem fits it, this is the converse truth, but initially, it was made to fit the problem.

Now, as to electromagnetism, the formula for that, is quite similiar to gravitational isn't it? Different constant, and use q1 and q2. (Please correct me if I"m wrong, cause, I am not too certain about it) But the constant is determined by the problem, and fits it accordingly.

Now, to use the analogy.

Life:Universe::Constant:Formula

[yes, this is so far a weak argument, and it probably won't get stronger]

To your argument, about the decided ratios of quark masses and the mass of a proton. We don't actually know the mass of a proton, we can just speculate. One Mol Hydrogen = 1,

One mol H2O = 18

18 - 2 = 16, therefore One Mol Water = 16

(The mass of an electron is assumed neglible, because they're so pessimistic)

Then your amu as perscribed by a periodic table, isn't even it for Carbon-12, it's just an average of the % composition of the different isotopes. Because, well they'd be in your mol of Carbon that percent. The theory behind carbon dating pretty much.

Now, as to how atoms work. (hold on, watching female gymnastics, nice...) Okay, where was I? You say, if the forces were different, atoms wouldn't form. I say, they would. The reason I make this arrogant claim, is by how actual Sciencetist, observed the decay of radioactive elements. There are Three main kinds of radiation, Alpha, Beta, and Gamma. Let's see if I can remember these right, (feel free to correct)

Alpha Radiation is the emission of He-4 atoms, which decreases the amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons, till it stablizes.

Beta Radtion is the emission of high speed electrons, this will actually cause a neutron to form into a proton, thus increasing the amount of protons to neutrons ratio.

Gamma Radiation is just the emission of photons, which is just wavelengths.

You also have two other types of decay,

positron emission, which will change a proton to a neutron. Now, a positron is equal in mass to an electron but opposite in charge.

electron capture, is when the electron is captured by the nucleus, and changes a proton to a neutron basically.

Now.. all stable elements, fit a general rule, which is the belt of stability, generally a ratio of protons and neutrons. The elements, like a constant, fit their forumula (enviroment), not really because they are designed, but because they alter as need be.

This unique nature of water, is called Hydrogen Bonding, yes it's quite special. How it's believe to happen, is a hydrogen atom has only one electron. When chemically bonded to say an Oxygen atom, it's tail (figurtively speaking) has no negative charge, so it could easily for a brief bond, with a neighboring molecule. Now, Hydrogen bonds happen with Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Flourine. These quick bonds, actually increases the density, by limiting the volume. D = m/V

It happens with other chemicals like Ammonia, HF, infact that's why HF is a weak acid. Because the hydrogen bond does not allow to dissociatate as well as say HCL, only one thing below.

This miraculous floating is attributed to the hydrogen bond, because when substances solidify, they take on an ordered structure, and the volume of that is greater than the liquid, because you don't have tons of breaking and reforming hydrogen bonds to keep it close.

Now, as to your comment about carbon. It fits the need, and that coincidence is derived mathematically, and fits well into our universe.

Silicon is more abundant in our enviroment, just walk a beach if you don't believe me. It's chemically, the similar as carbon. Yet, we are made of carbon, that has to do with the fact the carbon atom is lighter. Now, significantly, in our enviroment there is more silicon than carbon, shouldn't we be made of silicon, because there are significantly more amounts of it, in our enviroment. I've repeated that many times, but we are not, because Silicon, why chemically similar, is too heavy. We meet, the needs placed by our enviroment, not by which is abundant.

It's not astronomically improbable, I don't think you're viewing it the right way. The evolution and proportion of our universe, reflects the culmative of the forces that control it. So, of course, it's coincidently portioned. Because, it reflects them, but it does not make them.

You seem to be focusing too much on one tiny detail in my opinion, but I'm not a sciencetist, and it's just how I see it.

[This message has been edited by speakeroo (edited 04-19-2005).]

As much as the universe has been

primed for life, the odds are

still huge against conditions for

life on any planet.

(The creationists have a solid point here.)

I don't believe random chance can

explain the universe, life or us.

But I don't believe in your god either.

There is some guiding force beyond

this reality, not necessarily a

concious benevolent being.

The best I can imagine is a

"landscape" of higher dimensions,

where this world is "flat" in

perspective. We just don't know,

and it's stupid to accept the first

myth that tries to explain it.