Incidentally, there are approximately 4.562 x 10 to the power of 47,993 nooks in the known universe. And just under 30 crannies... (Mostly in Ohio.)
Fred Hoyle used hyperbolic stats like this to show that it was practically impossible that life could have arisen without God. Do we believe him?
Yes of course, but what do do know is that life is robust and adaptable.
Life
on earth is, but what do we know about extra-terrestrial life, of any form? Not a lot, as there isn't evidence for it, just places where it could exist (solar-like systems etc).
and there is significant evidence to show that the earth atmosphere has actually changed because of life
There's a big hole in the ozone layer because of us if that's what you mean....... Even not including man, the atmosphere changes because of its reactions with both organic and inorganic compositions in the earths crust. I think we should redefine 'life' as not this great, wonderful, amazing thing, but just as a complex thing. Emotive words really confuse the argument, as people put more value on 'wonderful' than 'truthful'.
in fact life exists in the most unlikely of places
Only previously thought of as unlikely because life wasn't known to be there.
this shows at the very least that you could alter earths environmental conditions by a fairly large margin and still some life would thrive.
I agree; this is one of the main arguments against the anthropic principle.
It could be that the only difference between earth and a trillion other places life could have occured is that abiogenesis happened here. That could be what makes earth special.. or.. we might just find microbacteria on Mars.. or elsewhere.
You still put a higher price on life because of the fact that it is life. Like the thing i said before about the rare element, life is only deemed 'special' because of its complexity, which i believe is a logical conclusion after abiogenesis.
So I suppose the abiogenesis, as you say, is the important part. Some people have created life from non-living compounds using the right chemicals and an electric shock, i think.
There is just as much proof against God's existance as there is for.
Do you mean 'evidence'? And the differences in the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence is biased in favour of the scientific view i think, if you start impartially.
Although, i find the for more logical and reasoned than the against.
Why?
