so you're saying that any experiment done by humans is unrepresentative of conditions found in nature, because there is a consciousness behind the experiment? in that case we should just give up on science as it can't really teach us anything about the world around us...
in this particular experiment nobody assembled the components, they just mixed up the gases believed to comprise Earth's atmosphere billions of years ago, added an occasional spark to simulate lightning and analysed the mixture after a couple of weeks. the 'assembling' part took care of itself, a result of natural laws. the same laws that brought the same components to the surface of the Earth over four billion years ago.
of course there are criticisms of these experiments, the primary one being that Earth's primordial atmosphere was not as reducing as assumed in the experiment. this is still open for debate, but even if so it would basicly just slow down the formation of complex organic molecules, they would still form eventually. there was plenty of time...

'probably' is just a word for describing probability, even if rather numericly inaccurate. in this case used to convey the fact that all conditions for the emergance of life existed on Earth half a billion years before the current DNA based life appeared (it was actually initially based on RNA or even something simpler). it is therefore reasonable to assume that life did indeed develop before 3.8 billion years ago (the age of the oldes phosilized microorganisms), but was wiped out by giant impacts that were common until 3.9 billion years ago.

as for 'probability' in science - as i said, the word is only a rather crude way to express probability. and that's what science is really about - probability. and aproximation.

but you don't need anyone to ignite a fire to get a cooked fish, as long as you just have a big enough ocean and enough time to wait! eventually some poor fish somewhere will get too close to an undewater heat source (a heat vent, an underwater volcano, a lava flow...) and get cooked, no 'divine' intervention necessary.
of course, that will leave you with just one cooked fish and you'll have to wait a while to get another one. life however, is very resiliant and once it begins it's not easy to get rid of it.

what consitutes a scientific proof anyway? it's just about using existing knowledge to describe something to within a certain degree of certainty. to make the explanation probable enough.
as for assumptions, they are a key asspect of furthering our knowledge, as without assumptions on the nature of new phenomena science could not advance.

everything after 10^-43 of a second after the creation of the universe is a consequence of the actions of natural laws. everything after that moment can be explained by HOW, no WHY's are required. wheter or not some consiousness had something to do with the would-be-universe before the 10^-43 second mark, that's a matter of bersonal beliefs - those however have nothing to do with science.

the answer is we're not sure if the 'laws' of physics were always the same. or to be more accurate, we aren't sure if the fundamental physical constants (speed of light, gravitational constant, fine structure constant...) are indeed constant or if they changed through time. the debate is not likely to be settled soon, though observations of distant space objets and phenomena have put constraints on possible variations of some of the constants.
however, even if these constants and our 'laws' of physics turn out to be changing through time, it just means there is another 'law' governing this behaviour, one that we are yet to discover. rememeber, that what we reffer to as natural 'laws' are nothing more than aproximations we derived to explain observed phenomena.

[ 09-03-2004, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: frudi_x ]

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

Really couldn't resist. :rolleyes:

Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.

What I have read is that the chance that other sentient beings exist in the universe are quite big, but the chance of them being close enough to someday meet us are quite small. So the chance that this topic question be answered before Ziroc dies of old age are quite very small indeed. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Let me rephrase: Yorick, not every topic has to be about creationism. Please quit taking every opportunity to pull out the soap box, and please quit trying to set the world record for number of posts closed. Thanks much, old buddy, old pal.

[ 09-03-2004, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

And as for you well know TL, (and others who may care to take this under advisement) use of language in context gives certain words and phrases added significance. Therefore, please refrain from using what some will consider offensive blasphemy in posts directed at those of a "religious" persuasion. Personally speaking, it does not matter a jot to me, but it adds nothing to your point.

I edited it.

Thank you [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

If you could just see your way clear to taking your personal disagreement with Yorick to PM, all would be sweetness and light :D

Now, lets get back on topic ;)

Let me rephrase: Yorick, not every topic has to be about creationism. Please quit taking every opportunity to pull out the soap box, and please quit trying to set the world record for number of posts closed. Thanks much, old buddy, old pal. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not talking about creationism theory. I didn't present any creation theory vs evolution theory arguments. I am talking about life existing in the universe, and my belief firstly that life, in the form of a creator and other spiritual beings means that 'no, we are not alone' and secondly, that the existence of a creator in my mind increases the odds of other physical lifeforms existing.

Am I not allowed in this discussion because of the reasons for my opinions? Are the only valid opinions about extraterrestrial life ones that are atheistic? I elaborated on my opinions to illuminate why I exist in a comfortable state of not knowing.

Why take the topic off-topic and challenge my right to contribute to a discussion?

I believe that life exists in the universe that is not of this planet, but do not believe in the necessity of life on other planets.

How is that not related to this discussion? Can we get back on topic please. Thanks.

[ 09-03-2004, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]