I believe the state of Astronomy is too far advanced for that to be the case. Astronomers have direct evidence of the disposition of elements in the Cosmos, through spectral analysis and other means.
Astrophysicists have elaborate and well established theories of how the elements were created, which may be wrong, but it's unlikely, especially since the theories cohere so well with direct observations.

I'm suggesting that DNA is largely influenced by Nitrogen.

As you admitted, Silicon can replace Carbon's contribution due to it's ability to form long, unbroken chains.


If you have any literature on this, I would like to read it. I'm not antagonizng, I'm just curious.

I hope it's dumbed down some. I'm neither an astronomer or geologist.

Well nearly any organic chemist will dispute you for hundreds of reasons I won't go into, but in any case yours is speculation and speculation is entirely different than concluding there is life out there and to deny it is counter to reason and logic.


I respected the size of the universe when I mentioned that there are about 10^81 atoms in this universe.


Fair enough, but the problem is that as large as it is, it is nowhere nearly large enough to overcome the improbability of forming self-replicating polymers from inorganic chemistry.  I don't think you grasp the difficulty of an event like this by chemic evolution.

Easy responses are not always correct.


This universe isn't even close to generating infinite opportunity.  Since the events we are speaking about are macro-events, as all chemic events are, we have 10^81 atoms and plank time giving us up to 10^45 macro events per second and then considering that this universe may be 14 billion years old we have less than 10^150 total macro events that could ever have possibly occurred.  Now if anything has a likelihood of occurring that is more than a couple of orders of magnitude less than the reciprocal of this, we can conclude that it should never happen in this universe.  Based on our current understanding of chemical laws, the nature of chemical reaction equilibrium and kinetics driven by random Brownian motion we get the odds of spontaneous generation of the most simple self replicating polymer at far less than than 1 in 10^400.  This universe is big but it does not appear to be nearly large enough to account for life from non-life based on what we currently know.  You can speculate, but you cannot cite logic and reason.  To believe life in this universe happened randomly by material mechanisms requires a huge leap of faith.

Just a random thought. We are quickly developing the abbility to find planets around distant stars. With time we will detect smaller and smaller planets. This means it's a matter of time until we can detect planets the size of Earth, around stars the kind of our sun. And then, that will open the chance to detect an oxygen-rich atmopshere on one of such planets... and then we all know what it means an oxygen rich atmosphere. The only thermodynamic device that can liberate massive amounts of oxygen into an atmosphere and keep the levels high is Life. Just the reduction of a methane atmosphere would be a clear sign.

This means that we may perfectly find out evidence of extraterrestrial life far earlier and easier than finding out intelligent life. All in all, we used to think that intelligence was the most conspicuous proof of e.t. life... but now we are in our way to just look at indirect eivdence of it. Think of the consequences... and think that it could perfectly happen during our lifetime...

I agree that searching for oxygen on a planet would be a good way to look for life.  Not sure why you think it might be likely that we find it though.

I have read their material. Like the book I referenced above. And they do make a presumption of the ease of creating life, based on their advanced knowledge of chemistry and physics. A knowledge, I am comfortable in supposing, that is far more advanced than either yours or mine.

Sure.
1) The ability to read well.
2) Common sense. The ability to understand that an astrophysist writing about this has fewer axes to grind or ideologies at stake than, say, some anonymous source posting on a political chat forum with the chosen name "Reasoned Faith."
3) A lack of a pre-existing ideology that I desperately want to be true, to the point of it blinding me from seeing anything that might "endanger" that ideology.

No, indeed.
And my bias? To the better argument.


Ah, that's where we differ. Scientists don't have a "belief" about how life started. They have theories. Which are strong or weak depending on how well they hold up to empirical testing.
As for your "probability numbers," they are entirely speculative and prove nothing other than how uncertain this entire line of inquiry is, which renders this line of yours; "When one steps away from presumption and relies only on available empirical data, one can only conclude that life should not have started anywhere in this universe by material mechanisms" utterly absurd.

Sorry for rejecting your transparent allusion to life depending on the benevolence of a supernatural sky-god. By the way, who created your sky-god?

And you would be spectacularly wrong once again, though perhaps not in your case.


A better argument generally requires concordance with evidence.  Your bias is your favored presupposition.


Nonsense, everyone has a worldview including all scientists and technologists.


A scientific theory stands or falls independently of the scientists that support it. 


They are evidence based on what we know about chemistry and biology.  They are the best indication we have.  You can't do much better than that.  Perhaps you can cite some better numbers supported by better evidence?


Since it is based on evidence and reason and logic it is sound.  Please support with real data where I err.  You can't.


Evidence only suggests that life from non-life is exceedingly difficult to make and that known chemic processes could not have done it.  I don't have anything to say about this sky-god you mention.

When you review this thread in total, it is amazing what speculation you folks pass as science without complaint.  Then when I come along an point out what the evidence actually tells us, you complain I am not being scientific.  What a joke.