re: How would the discovery of life on other planets affect us?

quote:

---

So do you believe that since you already deem the Big Bang theory null and void . . .

---

I believe you're confused and/or out of your depth.

quote:

---

Regarding Big Bang Theory

---

You should probably reread the related posts prior to proceeding.

IAW Big Bang Theory, what preceded Cosmic expansion?

Now that you (presumably) understand you were wrong regarding cosmic expansion as a beginning, let's build on that a bit.
What does the BBT cite as origin of the singularity?

Cosmic expansion was ultimately the beginning of our universe. If you're asking me what "caused" the infinitesimally small bit of matter to eventually expand so, or to originate in the first place, I guess that is the million dollar question.

I would say to someone who thinks a god or many gods did this--who then created them, if everything must have a "creator"? It is a circular argument

I can't imagine it was the only instance of a "Big Bang" though. Though that is just thinking out loud

quote:

---

would say to someone who thinks a god or many gods did this--who then created them, if everything must have a "creator"? It is a circular argument

---

I agree that it implies some sort of circular or cylical (versus linear) timeline, but the fact remains - every action is a consequence of a previous action. You can reverse engineer the most popular theories of life all the way back to the discredited Miller/Urey "soup" and continue to ask - "Okay, what was there before that?" - and if you conclude that non-organic material, under laboratory conditions, could form a simple life form - the question of where the genetic information came from remains - that HAS to have come from somewhere else. No other conclusion is possible, based on what we know. Now, future research may reveal the spontaneous creation of genetic material - keep in mind it is information, like language or a set of instructions - even if susceptible to literal transcription, one would need a functioning source sample to reproduce. To suggest that the source DNA for every life form on Earth, albeit with subsequent evolutionary switches, random mutations, and the like could have shaped evoluationary outcomes over millions of years, simply appeared, effectively out of thin air, seems a stretch to fit a singular conclusion.

As of now - the simplest answer (Occam's Razor) is that it was placed there by an intelligence with examples of similar genetic material. The most complex is that a nearly infinite universe, with nearly infinite complexity in a fashion that mimics some sort of intelligence, created all the right circumstances for life on Earth (and perhaps elsewhere - perhaps not).

But, the "random chance" hypothesis (honestly, I don't know what to call it) seems to require more mental gymnastics than simply admitting, "We don't know, but it certainly looks like an intermediate step, rather than the genesis."

quote:

---

I simply wonder why one must conclude that because they do not understand exactly how the universe(or other universes) and life began, it must have been an intelligent designer by default

---

I didn't say that "by default" - I said that the operation, at a minimum, mimics intelligence, and there are few ways around that. Something that mimics intelligence (and evolutionary processes do this - so do artificial things, such as dollar cost averaging) - to discount actual intelligence as a possible explanation seems to fit the very definition of counter-intuitive.

What I'm saying is "life" on Earth (or anything similar to this phenomenon) - appears, on its surface to have been part of a designed system. There is flora and fauna at every step and tier, and those forms appear to be adapting to each other's presence on the planet. Rocks, rivers, other natural, inorganic features also "respond" to the presence of life, but not actively - only indirectly, and, generally, in a destructive relation from the life towards the non-life perspective.

That diversity only makes sense within the system - if we all started out from the same, common, simple life form ancestor - what evolutionary advantage came from becoming prey? What evolutionary advantage did wings present before the creature was able to fly? Ditto for legs for dry land.

I understand that millions of years supposedly explains this - but, seriously - how is the mutant fish reproducing (until the point it becomes the dominant type in it's chain) and passing on the vestigal legs until he can walk and breathe on dry land? If this were actually happening all the time (as is suggested - almost required by evolutionary theory) why don't we see all those intermediate forms (or their counterparts with other species)?

Or is it as simple as it constituting a designed system that introduced all the forms necessary, engineered to produce the diversity we see in a relatively short period of time (geologically), then produce a fairly stable (again, relatively) ecosystem of organisms?