Totally artificial life, getting a lot closer:

Originally posted by sonhouse
For one thing, if you managed to make a triple helix, you would be able to store more data in a smaller volume so you could have more complex lifeforms.

Still i dont think it would matter that much, it wouldnt automaticly lead to more complex lifeforms.
We only use a small part of our DNA for information anyways.
"In many species, only a small fraction of the total sequence of the genome encodes protein. For example, only about 1.5% of the human genome consists of protein-coding exons, with over 50% of human DNA consisting of non-coding repetitive sequences.[57]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

And even more genes doenst lead to more complex lifeforms. Plants seem to have the most genes, around 50 thousand. Humans and mamals like mice and rats have around 25 thousand genes. Insects and worms contain around 10 to 20 thousand genes.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The most dangerous phase in a space vehicels lifetime is (in order) (1) the journey up through the atmosphere, (2) the journey down through the atmosphere, and (3) up there in the space.
If somethings happens in the journeythrough the atmosphere and the container breaks up in pieces, then it's a risque that we have a fall out, and contamination.
If the ...[text shortened]... If it furthermore like the nutricients of our bodies, then we are in deep deep trouble.

Ok thats true, there is a certain risk you would take.
But i do think that IF theres life on mars, its completely adapted to the conditions on mars. It would not favour our atmosphere, more likely it would die right away.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You´ve been getting away with this for too long. The identity of the designer is a critical flaw in the theory of Intelligent Design. Either your designer is a supernatural entity, or it is not. Now if you want to have a supernatural designer then it is not clear to me that there is any need for intelligent design beyond choosing the laws of physics, ...[text shortened]... on years. Either you have to explain this or abandon the notion of a non-supernatural designer.

Your agrument is ...? My designer has to be supernatural, or evolution
didn't require a designer at all? Come on either the work was so
simple it just happened without any plan, purpose, or design, else
someone or something had a plan, purpose, and design! You it seems
put limitations upon so many things not being able to play out on the
time you suppect was available, or you are very comfortable with the
time available for those things you do support could occur and you
have as much evidence for either point of view which is next to nothing.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
Of course, by human design. IMHO, human design may lead to life forms not known on this planet, there are variations on the regular DNA helix we could use, like instead of the double helix, a triple helix or quad helix or another way to pack genetic material altogether.
When you talk about a non-god Intelligent designer, are you perhaps thinking about th ...[text shortened]... ion or do they just throw the dice and let things sort themselves out without further help?

The point is that if you acknowledge life could be designed, why are
you so upset that the life around you could also be designed?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Come on either the work was so
simple it just happened without any plan, purpose, or design, else
someone or something had a plan, purpose, and design!

What are you talking about here, abiogenesis or evolution? In either case, I suppose it would be fairly simple, provided you had astonishing expertise in genetic engineering and nanoscale manipulation techniques, and a whole heckuva lot of time to experiment with. Problem is, where did the expert come from?

Originally posted by KellyJay
There are two groups of people that look at design, those as you
describe them, 'God did it', and those that just say, 'it was done.'

You and others here always look at design by viewing all people who
look at design as 'God did it' even when the discussion isn't about
that, you turn it towards that as if that was the only discussion on the
table.
...[text shortened]... ant to talk about creation and who
did that, that is another topic all together.
Kelly

So when creationists talk about intelligent design of life they are not talking about “God’s” design? 😛
Oh come on KellyJay, who are you trying to kid? Of COURSE they are talking about “God’s” design! “who” else’s design are they talking about in the context of life if not “God’s” ?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
So when creationists talk about intelligent design of life they are not talking about “God’s” design? 😛
Oh come on KellyJay, who are you trying to kid? Of COURSE they are talking about “God’s” design! “who” else’s design are they talking about in the context of life if not “God’s” ?

The difference in the 'it was done' version is a deliberate deception at the highest levels of the religious right, those directly involved with their legal battles trying to kill evolution being taught in middle and HS or at least have creationism taught side by side with evolution in science classrooms. The 'it was done' crowd thinks that by introducing this strawman argument, they can convince some room temp. IQ judge somewhere they aren't REALLY talking about 'God' to try an end run around the concept of separation of church and state.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Your agrument is ...? My designer has to be supernatural, or evolution
didn't require a designer at all? Come on either the work was so
simple it just happened without any plan, purpose, or design, else
someone or something had a plan, purpose, and design! You it seems
put limitations upon so many things not being able to play out on the
time you suppe ...[text shortened]... occur and you
have as much evidence for either point of view which is next to nothing.
Kelly

No the other way round. Either your designer is supernatural in which case you get necessity issues - the is a more elegant method than petty tinkering available to a God. Alternatively, your designer is not supernatural in which case you get obvious problems like how do they manage a project that lasts for 4 billion years.

Natural selection does not require conscious intervention. A design hypothesis does, your designer needs to be able to survive for a ridiculously large amount of time to be able to do this. This effectively rules out natural designers.

It is not a matter of suspicion that the earth is 4 billion years old. We have high quality evidence about this. There is good evidence for the theory of natural selection. There is some evidence for the abiogenesis theory. There is no evidence for a designer what-so-ever.

Originally posted by PBE6
What are you talking about here, abiogenesis or evolution? In either case, I suppose it would be fairly simple, provided you had astonishing expertise in genetic engineering and nanoscale manipulation techniques, and a whole heckuva lot of time to experiment with. Problem is, where did the expert come from?

Well without abiogenesis many people's views about evolution get
cast aside, it is the start of the process.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
So when creationists talk about intelligent design of life they are not talking about “God’s” design? 😛
Oh come on KellyJay, who are you trying to kid? Of COURSE they are talking about “God’s” design! “who” else’s design are they talking about in the context of life if not “God’s” ?

When I address my beliefs I do not talk about ID, for me it is all
a matter of creation! That is not a subject that can be found through
any means man has, because it was a special event God created, which
means science will be useless while talking about that subject.
Kelly

Originally posted by DeepThought
No the other way round. Either your designer is supernatural in which case you get necessity issues - the is a more elegant method than petty tinkering available to a God. Alternatively, your designer is not supernatural in which case you get obvious problems like how do they manage a project that lasts for 4 billion years.

Natural selection does no ...[text shortened]... is some evidence for the abiogenesis theory. There is no evidence for a designer what-so-ever.

The debate is about the process, can the process occur and do all the
things people claim without something or someone stepping in.

You are attempting to shift the debate off the process upon some
one I've not attempted to describe and calling foul when I have no
desire or interest in describing the designer. I wonder why you have
described the limitations of what you think the designer must be like
and how the designer must have done it as well? If design was in
play why would it take billions of years to achieve life as we see it
today, design after all could also mean life no longer had to depend
upon random mutations through natural selection getting it all just
right through billions of years.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The debate is about the process, can the process occur and do all the
things people claim without something or someone stepping in.

You are attempting to shift the debate off the process upon some
one I've not attempted to describe and calling foul when I have no
desire or interest in describing the designer.

You are not going to single handedly set the agenda for this debate. You are attempting to keep the debate on the difficulties with the natural origins theory rather than face the manifest problems with the intelligent design conjecture. You hope that rubbishing the natural origins theory will leave an explanatory vacuum into which intelligent design can step. However, that is not good enough, we are comparing two theories so it is reasonable to critically analyse both of them. You have not presented a detailed account of what the intelligent design conjecture actually says, nor have you presented any evidence for it. I and others have presented considerable amounts of evidence for the natural origins theory. It is time for you to present your side.

Originally posted by KellyJay
When I address my beliefs I do not talk about ID, for me it is all
a matter of creation! That is not a subject that can be found through
any means man has, because it was a special event God created, which
means science will be useless while talking about that subject.
Kelly

….When I address my beliefs I do NOT talk about ID, for me it is all
a matter of creation!
..…(my emphasis)

Reminder of one of your quotes in your original post:

….I suggest you look at INTELLIGENT DESIGN as something apart from who
did it,..… (my emphasis)

Mmmm -are you talking about ID there? ( ID = INTELLIGENT DESIGN)

….That is not a subject that can be found through
any means man has, because it was a special event God created,
.…

That is your belief and those of other Creationists -so you admit that the Creationists including yourself ARE talking about ID AND that ID is “God”? -this appears to just confirm what I am saying.

Originally posted by zozozozo
Ok thats true, there is a certain risk you would take.
But i do think that IF theres life on mars, its completely adapted to the conditions on mars. It would not favour our atmosphere, more likely it would die right away.

There is a lot of life forms on Earth that would live quite happily live on mars. I see no reason why the other way around would not be possible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is a lot of life forms on Earth that would live quite happily live on mars. I see no reason why the other way around would not be possible.

The copious amounts of free oxygen do all sorts of mischief to species that aren´t adapted to it.