Intelligent design only requires intelligence to see. Can anyone show us an example of life without water? The answer is no! Based on all the hard data we have; 100%, water is the only solvent that have been able to evolve and support life. All the rest is unsubstantiated speculation, designed to give credence to the random assumption, which is not valid in a quantum universe. Random is valid for manmade things, like lotteries, cards, casinos and factories, but not for natural things. Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe." He did not believe the universe was governed by the math behind lotteries and gambling casinos. A quantum universe loads the dice and counts cards. A quantum universe precludes all states and only allows heads, since the dice are loaded so the designer can win. For example the hydrogen atom has five energy levels and not infinite energy levels as assumed by random. Each energy level is define by a specific energy quanta and not randomly by any energy quanta. The hydrogen dice are loaded. If they were not loaded we could not infer anything about the universe, from atomic emissions, since tomorrow that could change in a random universe. But since there is a design, we can rely on our interpretation. Hydrogen is the original atom of the universe, along with some helium. Oxygen is the third most abundant atom of the universe due to its nuclear stability. Water is the second most abundant molecule behind only hydrogen molecules. Hydrogen, oxygen and water define the energy limits of the living state. The foundation of life was in motion since the first stars. What was most common from the beginning became the basis for life. In a random universe it is all about stumbling in the dark. Return to the light!
To me looking at the Universe he is a crappy player Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As usual this is chock full of ballocks, but to pick a point at random (geddit?), the hydrogen atom does not have only 5 energy levels, it has an infinite number, that converge to a limit, which is the ionisation energy of the atom. More here: http://chemguide.co.uk/atoms/properties/hspectrum.html
We only have a sample of one kind of life, the kind of life found here on Earth. That kind of life appears to have originated in an aqueous environment and makes great use of water. An issue that arises here is how we define 'life' and how we would even recognize it if we encounter it elsewhere in the galaxy. I'm inclined to think in more or less functional terms and speculate that 'life' should be defined along the lines of self-reproducing (in both the growth and procreation senses) chemical structure that is able to exploit the environment in powering and synthesizing more of itself and which is subject to natural selection and hence to evolution over time, growing in complexity. I'm not convinced that self-reproducing structures that exploit their environments and evolve over time must always resemble us. Given the fortuitous nature of how we seem to have originated, I'd guess that the great majority of the things out there that display these functional characteristics don't. Earth life, which is the only example of life that we have at the moment. Of course.
In the most rudimentary sense, it just requires a pattern or structure that replicates (in terms of either micro- or even macro- level components). Any further complex development over time arguably might be dependent upon the range of the configurable characteristics / properties belonging to the particular substrate(s) originally involved or added later in the early going. Replicating and enduring organizations might even arise in outer space from interacting helical arrangements that emerge in dust clouds: Physicists Discover Inorganic Dust With Lifelike Qualities Yes, but the very availability of speculative possibilities is what keeps the door open, prevents the current warranted knowledge resting on the table from being turned into stagnant and obstructing dogma. "Keep searching for more nooks and cracks in this jailhouse, Jasper! Let more degrees of freedom ring!" - - - - -
