Well I'm not the one who brought this up. All I am saying is that, if anything, observed lack of extraterrestial life is evidence against the existence of a naturalistic mechanism to get life. But of course, and I'll repeat myself, I totally agree we haven't searched enough for this to hold any weight.
Cool. I'll leave this then, we seem to be in tentative agreement.
You can't really apply this ''test'' (I wouldn't have chosen that word but oh well) to a supernatural designer, unless you are willing to embark on the theology of what a designer would or would not do.
I don't see why the same argument against natural life can't be used on designed life.
Seeing you speak in absolutes, I assume you are very near 100% sure that we will eventually find extraterrestial life. Seems like a faith-based statement, however.
I think the probability of life elsewhere follows logically from the science of evolution, but I admit, until we find anything, my certainty is not fully explained by the evidence. You could call it faith, but it's a faith I'm perfectly willing to abandon should new evidence come in to refute it.
You need more then physics to explain DNA, RNA and life. You also need information theory.
I'm not sure how information has more to do with RNA than with solar spectroscopy.
I also currently study physics at university, and I understand what you mean, but you are neglecting the information aspect that life contains, and this is what seperates it from simply being ''special chemistry''.
Again, there is information inherent in every chemical process, every physical process, and every biological process. How his information more relevant to RNA/DNA than to solar spectroscopy?
The chemical interactions between the molecules of a DNA strand tells us nothing about the information it contains, because it does not depend on the interactions but in the order of those molecules, and this must be viewed from the POV of information theory, not chemistry.
The order of the molecules is determined by chemical reactions.
This is why it is the fallacy of composition to attribute to life only the characteristics that it's individual components hold.
What is it about life that makes it more than the sum of its chemistry. I'll readily admit that humans, chimps, dolphins and other higher order life forms have emergent properties that make them more than chemistry, but that's not inherent to "life." What makes a single-celled organism more than chemistry?
''Pigs can fly'' isn't a universal negative.
True, but the argument that life can't form from non-life is usually stated as if there is a law that prevents it, which is a positive claim. If you don't believe that, then we can drop that argument, since you seem to be saying that it is possible for life to form from non-life.
™ Version 4.2
