Science cannot say it could not have happened with God's guidance, and it does not claim that.
With that in mind, I follow the scientific debate about exactly how life came out of a bunch of chemicals. I enjoyed reading how scientists have managed self assembly of two of the four bases of RNA, Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, and Uracil. Though it required purification steps not expected to have occurred in the early earth, it is a step forward. Where this might have occurred and under what atmospheric conditions are still interesting areas of study. Again, as long as we do not try to use this to prove atheism or theism, I am content with the science.
Again, as long as we do not try to use this to prove atheism or theism, I am content with the science.
Science has nothing to say whatsoever on atheism or theism. It is usually fundamental Christians who try to argue that science removes God or tries to prove his nonexistance. Scientists merely look for natural processes because those are all we can look for with any consistency.
However, the fact that everything we once attributed to a god or gods is being replaced by a naturalistic process implies that gods are not only irrelevant to science but unecessary to life the universe and everything. Now, they could still exist, there's just no reason to think they do.
You bring up some good points but even if we expand the possibilities as you suggest, it limits the possibilities severely. One point is that the ratio of the weight of the largest Jovian moons to Jupiter is close to 1/20,000. All four gas giants range 5/10,000 to 1/ 40,000. The ratio of the moon to Earth is 1.2/100, making the normal capture method impossible, making an earth moon system rare. Another point is that for life on a moon of a gas giant, the gas giant would have to be in the habitable region of the sun, and the moon would have to be in the habitable region of the gas giant. Some of the moons receive too much radiation. Worlds circling red dwarves might receive too little radiation for life. Red dwarves are typically old and might have formed when there were too few heavy metals. With lower radiation levels, if life formed, it might take much longer to evolve, so newer red dwarves might not have advanced life or even any life yet. I am sure that there are other constraints. that I haven't mentioned or scientists haven't thought of. This makes the transition from chemistry to biology a very rare event. As you have pointed out, the rarity depends on certain assumptions, but it will be rare. I think it will be rarer that you think.
The ratio of the moon to Earth is 1.2/100, making the normal capture method impossible, making an earth moon system rare.
The moon wasn't captured in a "normal" capture method. Perhaps being hit by a massive proto-planet while gravity is fluxuating during the formation of a solar system such that it coalesces into a moon is rather common. We just don't have enough data to make any sort of conclusion. And as I said, it is not absolute that a moon like ours is necessary, especially if the life is growing on a moon itself. Just because we live on the major planet in our earth-moon system does not mean all life has to.
Another point is that for life on a moon of a gas giant, the gas giant would have to be in the habitable region of the sun, and the moon would have to be in the habitable region of the gas giant.
Not even remotely true. A moon in an orbit around a gas giant such that tidal forces heat up the moon (such as Io) could have the heat necessary to have liquid water and the energy necessary for life to begin.
Red dwarves are typically old and might have formed when there were too few heavy metals. With lower radiation levels, if life formed, it might take much longer to evolve, so newer red dwarves might not have advanced life or even any life yet.
The fact that red dwarfs are old is a point in favor of life evolving on it. If the necessary chemicals are there, then time is the deciding factor, and as you've just said, any planets around a red dwarf have had ample time. As for newer red dwarfs, you're right, life might not have evolved yet, but that would give us a chance to possibly see the formation of life and it's growth patterns.
I am sure that there are other constraints. that I haven't mentioned or scientists haven't thought of. This makes the transition from chemistry to biology a very rare event.
But everything you've listed as a constraint can be mitigated or ignored if other factors are present. Not to mention, that all presupposes life like ours, but we only have a sample size of one, so knowing what life in general requires is impossible to figure out except for vague generalities.
As you have pointed out, the rarity depends on certain assumptions, but it will be rare. I think it will be rarer that you think.
And I think it will be more prevalent than you think. Neither of us knows, though, and what we think has absolutely no relevance. The assumptions we make skew things from very common to very rare. The truth is probably osmewhere in the middle because both extremes are left in the equation out of ignorance. As we learn more, the probability will probably be constrained more toward the middle. The biggest factor is time, and we've had loads and loads of it over vast amounts of viable real estate.
you are going beyond the question of science: the transition of chemistry to biology. Here you are beginning to say more than science says
You're right, as was indicated by me saying "implies that gods are not only irrelevant to science but unecessary to life the universe and everything." This means that gods are irrelevant to science, which is what science says. I then stepped beyond that and based on evidence, I have made the logical inference that if we can explain almost everything naturally, what does that leave a god to do? Not very much and less every day. Thus, a god is becoming less and less necessary. As I said, this has no bearing on an actual god's existence, but it does call into question the motives for believing in one for which there is no evidence and less and less need.
Scientists have calculated the enrichment of carbon per supernova cycle. Ancient stars have gone through fewer cycles of supernovas. An ancient Red Dwarf would be very poor in carbon content (oxygen and Nitrogen, too.) Carbon based life that we are looking at would have been unable to form at too low of levels. Again, scientists have calculated the situation at the Jovian moons. Many Jovian moons are subject to lethal levels of radiation from Jupiter, especially the ones close enough to receive tidal heating. We are just beginning to understand the special conditions on earth needed to allow the four RNA bases to form on earth. Heat and radiation are just two of the constraints. Even if a Jovian moon might achieve the conditions in a different way, the conditions would be rarely achieved. We just need one condition to be missing from say Titan to prevent life from having arisen there. As we learn how to self assemble the four basic blocks of RNA, in an open system, and not in a lab condition needing purification, we can then state the range of conditions under which RNA "life" could occur. Whether you use an earth around a sun like ours, a red dwarf, or a moon of Jupiter, we need those conditions. They are hard to achieve. Show me exactly how you get them around a Jovian moon. Show me the calculations: Sufficient warmth, non-lethal but sufficient radiation, sufficient carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen, a reducing, mathane(?) atmosphere, a long term water environment, and any other constraints that the lab results say are necessary. Again, I want calculations because we know some about what the conditions are, so we can calculate many of the factors.
You are right about the moon. Basic life, the subject of this thread might be able to occur without the stabilizing moon. Scientists say that advanced life would be impossible with an earth that wobbles. And it would wobble faster than it would be possible for migratory life to arise. Since it might be possible for the transition from Chem to Bio without the moon, this is outside this thread.
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150