RM>But hey, you and I can have some fun tossing this idea around.  Now,
RM>your reply to him looks to me like you are excluding ANY life from
RM>forming on a planet with the conditions like those of Venus.  I feel I
RM>must disagree with this.  Life as we know it (carbon based) may not be
RM>able to form or exist unaided on Venus, but that does not mean that life
RM>based on other compounds cannot.  You may be correct, or you may be
RM>incorrect... it is still open to question, right?
Right.  There may be conditions in the atmosphere conducive to life,
and we certainly don't know everything about how life might form
and evolve.  It's only been a few decades sonce we've known about those
archaeobacteria at the bottom of ocean trenches.  They use sulfur
instead of oxygen, IIRC, and DNA-wise they are also the closest we
have to a common ancestor for all life.
We've also found life thousands of feet down in seemingly solid rock,
under frozen lakes in Antarctica, and in the stratosphere IIRC.
As Chrichton put it in the novel Jurassic Park, life will find a way.
Actually, the creationist assertion that Venus is the likeliest
place to look for life is simply a strawman.  Mars is easily the
best choice, followed perhaps by Jupiter's moon Europa.
 * SLMR 2.1a * Liberal: Conservative who's tried to collect from his HMO
--- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta
(1:301/45)
---------------