Sorry Z. Your position just reminded me of the logical fallacies of debating learned from Debate class. Arguments like:
It's probably just another work from a minimalist sculptor/monolith artist like John McCracken.
Oh, no worries Jack. I do believe there is life on other planets somewhere in the universe so I enjoy discussions like this, but I tend to chime in with no actual facts because I find reading about such unidentified craft repetitive and rather boring. Also, I just can't concoct a good reason for why any of these beings would want to visit this chamberpot of a planet. So sometimes I need someone to remind me that I don't actually know what I'm talking about here and that I'm just reciting personal theories and/or any other miscellaneous rubbish that's been floating around in my mind far too long. So your "Ray Charles was God" example is a good one--connecting the dots with no valid reasons for doing so.
For me it's nothing more than a numbers game, i.e. that the odds are far better for some form of life existing elsewhere in the vastness of the universe than the forms on this relatively insignificant planet being so unique. As you wrote, the more I know about all of the things that have to exist or occur at precisely the right time and in just the right way in order to maintain what we call life on this planet, the harder I find it to believe we're the best the universe (or whichever supreme being/deity/deities you believe in) can come up with.
I think a large part of the misunderstandings is that so many...I'll be kind and use the term "interested parties"...seem to have their own definitions of those two words that they distort to further whatever their personal agendas might be, sometimes using them interchangeably even though they aren't synonyms. *shrug* People are going to believe whatever they want to believe.
