Oct 02,2009, 5:31PM
Was the Earth Fine-Tuned for Life?
Was the Earth Fine-Tuned for Life?
The argument for Intelligent Design is based on the idea that the conditions necessary for life are too perfect to have occurred naturally, and the complexity of DNA is so great that there must be an intelligence behind the creation of the earth and all life.
Lets look at the earth and the variables involved that must be "just right" for life to exist, apart from the argument of how life began. I will offer some of the variables and the estimated probability that any planet would have that condition so that we can calculate the probability of ANY planet being so suited for life. These factors were chosen for a specific property and reason. Change any factor listed below significantly and life on earth could not exist.
SIZE AND GRAVITY: There is a range for the size of a planet and its gravity, which supports life, and it is small. A planet the size of Jupiter would have gravity that would crush any life form, and any high order carbon molecules, out of existence. Of the 8 planets + Pluto in our solar system there are 3 that fall within that range, Venus, Earth, and Mars. There is the possibility of some of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter being within the range but nothing conclusive. An estimated guess of probability - .4 or 4 out of 10
WATER: Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist. For reasons that go back to the early beginning of the solar system, the earth is the only planet known with ANY significant amount of water. Of the planets of our solar system only earth meets that requirement. Estimated probability - .1
ATMOSPHERE: Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to "blanket' the combustion of oxygen, our world would 'burn up' from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere. Estimated probability - .01
OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life. Mars falls far short in that respect, and so does Venus. The amount of 'pure' oxygen in the atmosphere is dependent on many things, like volcanism, thermal activity in the core of the planet, and the amount of metal in the crust. Too much metal would absorb the oxygen in the air in the form of rust and oxidation. Estimated probability - .01
RARE EARTHS MINERALS: Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call 'rare earth' minerals. These only exist as 'trace' amounts, but without which life could not continue. Estimated probability - .1
THE SUN: Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. Life has been on the earth longer than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all. Estimated probability - .3
DISTANCE FROM THE SUN: To have a planet with a surface temperature within the bounds for life, it must be within the 'biosphere' of a star, a temperate zone of a given distance from the source of radiation and heat. That would depend on the size of the star. For an average star the size of our sun, that distance would be about 75 to 150 million miles. Estimated probability - .2
RADIOACTIVITY: Without radioactivity, the earth would have cooled to a cold rock 3 billion years ago. Radioactivity is responsible for the volcanism, and heat generated in the interior of the earth. Volcanism is responsible for many of the rare elements we need as well as the oxygen in the air. Most rocky planets have some radioactivity. Estimated probability .5
DISTANCE AND PLACEMENT FROM THE GALACTIC CENTER: We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior. Estimated probability - .5
THE OZONE LAYER: Animal life on land survives because of the ozone layer which shields the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth's surface. The ozone layer would never have formed without oxygen reaching a given level of density in the atmosphere. A planet with less oxygen would not have an ozone layer. Earth is the only planet in the solar system with an ozone layer. Estimated probability - .1
VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place. Mars once had such activity, but appears to be inactive now. Estimated probability - .3
EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD: We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth's magnetic field. Mars does not have a field and thus, most of its atmosphere and water were 'blown away' early in its life by the solar wind. Estimated probability - .2
SEASONS: Because of the earths tilt on its axis, we have seasons, and no part of the earth is extremely hot or cold. The seasons have balancing effect of the temperature on the surface and cause the winds and sea currents which we and all life depend on for a temperate climate. Mars has seasons but little atmosphere. Other planets have extreme tilts. Estimated probability - .2
THE MOON: Most people don't think of the moon as necessary for life. We have the tides that are very important for some species, but the very early collision of a smaller Mars sized planet and the earth is what caused the moon. It also tilted the earth on its axis and caused seasons. The earth and moon should more accurately be called a 'two-planet' system, as the size of earth's moon is greatly larger in proportion to the earth, than any other planet. The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating. The craters on the moon are the evidence of that factor. No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history. Estimated probability - .0001
There are other factors, but these are the most crucial. If any one of the above factors were missing, life could not have survived or developed on planet earth.
Multiplying all the probabilities of the above will give us the probability of any given planet having the conditions necessary for life.
.00000000000000072
Or seven chances in 10 quadrillion possibility. (for those following the U.S. budget, one quadrillion is a thousand Trillion)
It is evident from the math that the earth is a very special place in the universe. To say it is the only place like it would be speculative and unreasonable, given the immeasurable number of planets that must exist around the trillions of stars in other galaxies as well as our own. However we can't say for sure, because we have yet to discover another planet like it among the "exoplanets" so far discovered. One reason is our limited ability to analyze any planet smaller than "Jupiter-size" at the distances we are searching.
For all practical purposes the earth is very unique and is truly a "garden" amidst the desert of rocky barren planets we know of. The more we learn of the universe, the more the earth appears to be the extreme exception to the norm.
Was it "fine-tuned"? From the evidence, what do you think?
Was the Earth Fine-Tuned for Life?
Was the Earth Fine-Tuned for Life?
The argument for Intelligent Design is based on the idea that the conditions necessary for life are too perfect to have occurred naturally, and the complexity of DNA is so great that there must be an intelligence behind the creation of the earth and all life.
Lets look at the earth and the variables involved that must be "just right" for life to exist, apart fr...
Facebook
Yahoo Buz
My space
Digg
LIKEDIN
MIXX
Stumble It!
Del.icio.us
NewsVine
Email
Print
ShareMost recent comments
1.October 20,2009, 8:16AM
One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is TIME. Time itself had to have been the first element created. All the factors mentioned had to have been in a prime condition at relatively the same time as compared to the overall timeline of Creation. Which element came first and how long did each element exist or "evolve" before being exposed to the others. They had to have been brought together in a certain order or else life may not have existed as we know it. More importantly, if everything has already come together to create the perfect conditions for life on earth then everything needed to happen has already happened. So what does that leave for the future? How much time is left in the timeline of Creation? What's next? According to science it doesn't matter because mankind won't be around for the next element to show up. It was billions of years since the last one so why shouldn't it be billions of years for the next one. The answers will be coming soon.
These hecklers coming to the table with nothing more than insults and ridicule, not one of them has brought anything substantial to disprove anything in your article. Considering how much time and energy these people waste in trying to disprove anything to do with God you would think they'd have something more intelligent to say. They like to brush aside Creation or ID as some fantasy when, ironically, most of the theories they use to subjugate other minds are nothing more than fantasies created in labs or other places where fantasies are made logical. A person could spend an eternity in debate with these kinds of people, but what's the point. They believe they're right because their scientific community accepts their beliefs as truth, even when their truths exist only as created logical theories. Bottom line for me is that I see science at work ecery day and stand in awe at the wonder of our creator, God. Some day scientists may be able to prove beyond any doubt that God exists and they won't even realize it happened.
Their comments expose the secular scientific community as nothing more than God-haters. They have no real purpose on this earth other than to inject doubt into any serious discussions regarding ID or Creation. What is ironic is that all these God-haters can come up with when confronted by someone of spiritual persuasion is that they are right so you must be wrong. The sad part of their lives is that they'll spend it's entireity devoted to their theories and they won't live long enough to see any of those theories become law. How very very sad.
These hecklers coming to the table with nothing more than insults and ridicule, not one of them has brought anything substantial to disprove anything in your article. Considering how much time and energy these people waste in trying to disprove anything to do with God you would think they'd have something more intelligent to say. They like to brush aside Creation or ID as some fantasy when, ironically, most of the theories they use to subjugate other minds are nothing more than fantasies created in labs or other places where fantasies are made logical. A person could spend an eternity in debate with these kinds of people, but what's the point. They believe they're right because their scientific community accepts their beliefs as truth, even when their truths exist only as created logical theories. Bottom line for me is that I see science at work ecery day and stand in awe at the wonder of our creator, God. Some day scientists may be able to prove beyond any doubt that God exists and they won't even realize it happened.
Their comments expose the secular scientific community as nothing more than God-haters. They have no real purpose on this earth other than to inject doubt into any serious discussions regarding ID or Creation. What is ironic is that all these God-haters can come up with when confronted by someone of spiritual persuasion is that they are right so you must be wrong. The sad part of their lives is that they'll spend it's entireity devoted to their theories and they won't live long enough to see any of those theories become law. How very very sad.
--mwharton0615
2.October 16,2009, 10:08PM
Thank you NCGRAM for your very kind comment. It was deliberate. I wanted to see how far they would take their anti-God arguments, even when attacking an article that did not mention God at all in its content.
--aepling
3.October 16,2009, 12:58AM
--Mr.aepling...What is striking to me is though you don't actually credit God with earth's grand design & us, its inhabitants...your commenter’s refute even the idea it was all God's perfect plan. This is how the other side of the coin works, the adversary...the enemy of God. Stand up, you're being counted. Way to go!
--ncgramj
4.October 11,2009, 3:42PM
Drake's Equation calculates the possible number of planets with intelligent life that we may be able to communicate with. The major difference between Drake's and mine is that I compute the probability of life, and he calculates the NUMBER of planets (in our galaxy) we could possibly communicate with. The similarities are that he estimates these values the same way that I do. We both give 2 as the number of planets around a typical star that can support life but he gives the odds of life on these planets as 100%, which I think is ridiculous. He assumes that life will develope everywhere conditions are right, when the only example we have to compare with is our own earth.
This factor alone makes his number of possible planets extraordinarily high at 10.
Another similarity is that he estimates the possibility of a star at having planets as .5 where I give an estimate at .3.
If you take out the factor L, which is the length of time he estimates we will exist to attempt communication, the number N comes WAY down, but he is calculating a different outcome to mine.
I see Drake's method as not being vastly different, nor any more precise than my 'guesstimate' for finding probability. He uses the same probability function and the same method of estimating the odds of certain terms. I do disagree with him that 100% of all planets with certain conditions will develop life and that every star that has planets will have at least 2 such planets. That is an outrageous assumption given the unique requirements for life and given that our own sun, an average star, has only one, and it is the only one we have to make a comparison with.
The following analysis is from Wikopedia:
I draw attention to the last paragraph, a modern assessment of the values used by Drake, which dispute those values and agree more with my own values.
"
N=R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
R* is the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.[2].
Historical estimates of the parameters
Considerable disagreement on the values of most of these parameters exists, but the values used by Drake and his colleagues in 1961 were:
R* = 10/year (10 stars formed per year, on the average over the life of the galaxy)
fp = 0.5 (half of all stars formed will have planets)
ne = 2 (stars with planets will have 2 planets capable of supporting life)
fl = 1 (100% of these planets will develop life)
fi = 0.01 (1% of which will be intelligent life)
fc = 0.01 (1% of which will be able to communicate)
L = 10,000 years (which will last 10,000 years).
Drake's values give N = 10 × 0.5 × 2 × 1 × 0.01 × 0.01 × 10,000 = 10.
The value of R* is determined from considerable astronomical data, and is the least disputed term of the equation; fp is less certain, but is still much firmer than the values following. Confidence in ne was once higher, but the discovery of numerous gas giants in close orbit with their stars has introduced doubt that life-supporting planets commonly survive the creation of their stellar systems. In addition, most stars in our galaxy are red dwarfs, which flare violently, mostly in X-rays—a property not conducive to life as we know it (simulations also suggest that these bursts erode planetary atmospheres). The possibility of life on moons of gas giants (such as Jupiter's moon Europa, or Saturn's moon Titan) adds further uncertainty to this figure.
Geological evidence from the Earth suggests that fl may be very high; life on Earth appears to have begun around the same time as favorable conditions arose, suggesting that abiogenesis may be relatively common once conditions are right. However, this evidence only looks at the Earth (a single model planet), and contains anthropic bias, as the planet of study was not chosen randomly, but by the living organisms that already inhabit it (ourselves). Also countering this argument is that there is no evidence for abiogenesis occurring more than once on the Earth—that is, all terrestrial life stems from a common origin. If abiogenesis were more common it would be speculated to have occurred more than once on the Earth. In addition, from a classical hypothesis testing standpoint, there are zero degrees of freedom, permitting no valid estimates to be made." (exerpt from Wikopedia)
This factor alone makes his number of possible planets extraordinarily high at 10.
Another similarity is that he estimates the possibility of a star at having planets as .5 where I give an estimate at .3.
If you take out the factor L, which is the length of time he estimates we will exist to attempt communication, the number N comes WAY down, but he is calculating a different outcome to mine.
I see Drake's method as not being vastly different, nor any more precise than my 'guesstimate' for finding probability. He uses the same probability function and the same method of estimating the odds of certain terms. I do disagree with him that 100% of all planets with certain conditions will develop life and that every star that has planets will have at least 2 such planets. That is an outrageous assumption given the unique requirements for life and given that our own sun, an average star, has only one, and it is the only one we have to make a comparison with.
The following analysis is from Wikopedia:
I draw attention to the last paragraph, a modern assessment of the values used by Drake, which dispute those values and agree more with my own values.
"
N=R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
R* is the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.[2].
Historical estimates of the parameters
Considerable disagreement on the values of most of these parameters exists, but the values used by Drake and his colleagues in 1961 were:
R* = 10/year (10 stars formed per year, on the average over the life of the galaxy)
fp = 0.5 (half of all stars formed will have planets)
ne = 2 (stars with planets will have 2 planets capable of supporting life)
fl = 1 (100% of these planets will develop life)
fi = 0.01 (1% of which will be intelligent life)
fc = 0.01 (1% of which will be able to communicate)
L = 10,000 years (which will last 10,000 years).
Drake's values give N = 10 × 0.5 × 2 × 1 × 0.01 × 0.01 × 10,000 = 10.
The value of R* is determined from considerable astronomical data, and is the least disputed term of the equation; fp is less certain, but is still much firmer than the values following. Confidence in ne was once higher, but the discovery of numerous gas giants in close orbit with their stars has introduced doubt that life-supporting planets commonly survive the creation of their stellar systems. In addition, most stars in our galaxy are red dwarfs, which flare violently, mostly in X-rays—a property not conducive to life as we know it (simulations also suggest that these bursts erode planetary atmospheres). The possibility of life on moons of gas giants (such as Jupiter's moon Europa, or Saturn's moon Titan) adds further uncertainty to this figure.
Geological evidence from the Earth suggests that fl may be very high; life on Earth appears to have begun around the same time as favorable conditions arose, suggesting that abiogenesis may be relatively common once conditions are right. However, this evidence only looks at the Earth (a single model planet), and contains anthropic bias, as the planet of study was not chosen randomly, but by the living organisms that already inhabit it (ourselves). Also countering this argument is that there is no evidence for abiogenesis occurring more than once on the Earth—that is, all terrestrial life stems from a common origin. If abiogenesis were more common it would be speculated to have occurred more than once on the Earth. In addition, from a classical hypothesis testing standpoint, there are zero degrees of freedom, permitting no valid estimates to be made." (exerpt from Wikopedia)
--aepling
5.October 08,2009, 8:44PM
Atli, By the way, you mentioned water and I wanted to share the latest idea on the origin of earth's water. By measuring the ratio of 'heavy hydrogen' to normal hydrogen in the seas, scientists have determined that some asteroids in the belt between Mars and Jupiter are an exact match, while comets fail the test. Fooled me, I always thought comets were the obvious answer. I still believe that the 're-melting' of the earth by the collision with a Mars sized object is the key component, becaues it 'layered the earth, putting heavy elements at the center, uranium, iron, lead, etc, and allowing the water 'frozen' in rocks to be released and rise to the surface. Perhaps the smaller object had the water enbedded in it and carried it to earth. It needs more work and evidence to confirm though.
--aepling
6.October 08,2009, 8:34PM
ATLI: Thanks for reminding me of those variables. I know I didn't list everything. I thought I made it clear to everyone when I said "estimate" in the article, that it wasn't rocket science or a Doctoral Thesis, but you can always expect some to miss the point. You evidently understood what I was trying to say.
The premise was to list all 'critical' variables without which, life would not have developed or survive. I need to do Drake's equations and see how they compare. Haven't done that yet. I'm on a trip now and will do that as soon as I get home on my computer, instead of this borrowed one. Thank you for a 'thoughtful' comment in a 'desert of dry sand' :).
The premise was to list all 'critical' variables without which, life would not have developed or survive. I need to do Drake's equations and see how they compare. Haven't done that yet. I'm on a trip now and will do that as soon as I get home on my computer, instead of this borrowed one. Thank you for a 'thoughtful' comment in a 'desert of dry sand' :).
--aepling
7.October 08,2009, 2:31PM
Thanks for this article, it's really informative but you forget a few other variables.
1) Comet and Asteroid defense from Jupiter and Saturn.
2) The spinning of the earth is not a given. You only mention the seasons but forget the mere spinning.
3) Water, is thought to have come from a Comet or some other external source and what is the most bizarre about water is it's maximum density being at 4°C
means it protects life by freezing top down and not bottom up. This is unlike any other substance currently seen by humans.
Last but not least, what is the outcome of your variables when using the Drake Equation?
1) Comet and Asteroid defense from Jupiter and Saturn.
2) The spinning of the earth is not a given. You only mention the seasons but forget the mere spinning.
3) Water, is thought to have come from a Comet or some other external source and what is the most bizarre about water is it's maximum density being at 4°C
means it protects life by freezing top down and not bottom up. This is unlike any other substance currently seen by humans.
Last but not least, what is the outcome of your variables when using the Drake Equation?
--atli
8.October 07,2009, 5:35PM
While editing my response to a comment,an accident caused the deletion of all of today's comments to this time. Sorry about that.
--aepling
9.October 06,2009, 10:06PM
JohnKandor: "This was not taken out of context, you were simply trying (and failing; do you really believe that no one knows what your real beliefs are?) to obfuscate the issue."
I don't try to hide my beliefs. I believe God designed the earth for life. What's so hard to understand or "mysterious" about that. I deliberately left God out of the article because "intelligent design" is a viewpoint that does not specify "what" the "intelligence" is.
Why would you think my 'religious beliefs' are relevant to this post anyway? Bringing in irrelevant topics like this are a waste of time and pointless, and only suggest that you have nothing else of substance to debate.
">The basic rule for calculating the probability that both A and B are true (P(A&B)) where A and B are independent is to multiply their individual probabilities: P(A&B) = P(A) x P(B)."<
Thank you for "proving" my method is correct. I couldn't have said it better myself. That is EXACTLY what I did. You had earlier said it was incorrect. As far as the relationship of independent variables, I do admire your effort and skill at TRYING to explain it. You surprised me with that.
Your argument about 'related' variables is only valid if there is 100% overlap of ONE variable within another, ie, if one variable is entirely a subset of the other variable. If there is not that degree of overlap, it is perfectly valid to assign a probability to an event, ie. IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT TWO VARIABLES BE COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT, to assign a probability factor to an event, when computing the overall probability of a number of terms, providing the factor considers the overlap in the multiplication. Complete independence is a condition that would NEVER be satisfied in ANY natural event. Not ALL bodies with volcanoes have an atmosphere, with oxygen, with ozone. Not all bodies with atmosphers have active volcanoes. When I considered a planet with ozone, I allowed for a planet with an atmosphere and with oxygen, in the prediction. NONE OF MY VARIABLES HAD THE 100% OVERLAP THAT YOU SUGGEST. To use your standard of "some relationship" as a reason to eliminate variables, would be impossible as there is no event in nature that would meet that condition. Everything is related to some degree. Good explanation otherwise though!
I feel that my variables are fairly independent, while there may be some minor overlap. The ozone element is reasonably independent from the atmosphere or oxygen variable because some planets have atmospheres and oxygen, but no ozone. The "Ozone" prediction is .1, which is higher than the "Oxygen" prediction of .01, because the occurrance of atmosphere and oxygen had already been factored in. If Ozone was 'completely' independent of those two, and their occurance had not been factored in, it would, and should, have had a much smaller value, like .001, because the occurrance of ozone is much more rare than the occurance of oxygen.
To JohnKandor and GalapagosPete
It gets tiresome proving your arguments are invalid over and over, when you simply repeat the same fruitless, pointless, irrelevant, points. If you can't prove that the earth is not unique in the universe, simply say so.
This post is for scientific discussion and you make a lot of statements and accusations without proof, and give instead "opinions", and ask me to prove my side. I said before, it was never my intention to PROVE anything, only present evidence to consider. If you disagree, then PROVE your side.
This is not about semantics or definitions. You can't prove or disprove anything scientifically so you attack my "ENGLISH"? WOW, that's really indicative of your high debating skills.
I made it clear in the article that my 'calculations' are only 'estimates' and were never presented as a 'precise scientific analysis'. I wanted only to show the high improbability of another 'earth' happening somewhere else, and the 'suggestion' that it may not be due to natural circumstances. You say my math is wrong, but you laboriously AVOID correcting it, or showing what would happen if you did correct it. This is because you know the result would show that my argument is correct either way. All you have presented is your 'opinions' that I am wrong, because you can't disprove anything I say.
Its a very 'simple' argument. Either the earth is very unique or it isn't. You have both already agreed with me that it is. What part is it that you don't understand?
Anyway I have addressed all of your "opinions" and so-called "arguments" and you can only repeat them again ad-nausium
I don't try to hide my beliefs. I believe God designed the earth for life. What's so hard to understand or "mysterious" about that. I deliberately left God out of the article because "intelligent design" is a viewpoint that does not specify "what" the "intelligence" is.
Why would you think my 'religious beliefs' are relevant to this post anyway? Bringing in irrelevant topics like this are a waste of time and pointless, and only suggest that you have nothing else of substance to debate.
">The basic rule for calculating the probability that both A and B are true (P(A&B)) where A and B are independent is to multiply their individual probabilities: P(A&B) = P(A) x P(B)."<
Thank you for "proving" my method is correct. I couldn't have said it better myself. That is EXACTLY what I did. You had earlier said it was incorrect. As far as the relationship of independent variables, I do admire your effort and skill at TRYING to explain it. You surprised me with that.
Your argument about 'related' variables is only valid if there is 100% overlap of ONE variable within another, ie, if one variable is entirely a subset of the other variable. If there is not that degree of overlap, it is perfectly valid to assign a probability to an event, ie. IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT TWO VARIABLES BE COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT, to assign a probability factor to an event, when computing the overall probability of a number of terms, providing the factor considers the overlap in the multiplication. Complete independence is a condition that would NEVER be satisfied in ANY natural event. Not ALL bodies with volcanoes have an atmosphere, with oxygen, with ozone. Not all bodies with atmosphers have active volcanoes. When I considered a planet with ozone, I allowed for a planet with an atmosphere and with oxygen, in the prediction. NONE OF MY VARIABLES HAD THE 100% OVERLAP THAT YOU SUGGEST. To use your standard of "some relationship" as a reason to eliminate variables, would be impossible as there is no event in nature that would meet that condition. Everything is related to some degree. Good explanation otherwise though!
I feel that my variables are fairly independent, while there may be some minor overlap. The ozone element is reasonably independent from the atmosphere or oxygen variable because some planets have atmospheres and oxygen, but no ozone. The "Ozone" prediction is .1, which is higher than the "Oxygen" prediction of .01, because the occurrance of atmosphere and oxygen had already been factored in. If Ozone was 'completely' independent of those two, and their occurance had not been factored in, it would, and should, have had a much smaller value, like .001, because the occurrance of ozone is much more rare than the occurance of oxygen.
To JohnKandor and GalapagosPete
It gets tiresome proving your arguments are invalid over and over, when you simply repeat the same fruitless, pointless, irrelevant, points. If you can't prove that the earth is not unique in the universe, simply say so.
This post is for scientific discussion and you make a lot of statements and accusations without proof, and give instead "opinions", and ask me to prove my side. I said before, it was never my intention to PROVE anything, only present evidence to consider. If you disagree, then PROVE your side.
This is not about semantics or definitions. You can't prove or disprove anything scientifically so you attack my "ENGLISH"? WOW, that's really indicative of your high debating skills.
I made it clear in the article that my 'calculations' are only 'estimates' and were never presented as a 'precise scientific analysis'. I wanted only to show the high improbability of another 'earth' happening somewhere else, and the 'suggestion' that it may not be due to natural circumstances. You say my math is wrong, but you laboriously AVOID correcting it, or showing what would happen if you did correct it. This is because you know the result would show that my argument is correct either way. All you have presented is your 'opinions' that I am wrong, because you can't disprove anything I say.
Its a very 'simple' argument. Either the earth is very unique or it isn't. You have both already agreed with me that it is. What part is it that you don't understand?
Anyway I have addressed all of your "opinions" and so-called "arguments" and you can only repeat them again ad-nausium
--aepling
10.October 05,2009, 11:42PM
I did, however, get a chuckle out of the supposed biochemistry of the rare earth elements (the lanthanides and actinides). That was a real knee-slapper.
--JohnKandor
11.October 05,2009, 11:15PM
"Wrong: Taken out of context. We were discussing the ARTICLE when I said that I hadn't said "God did it". I made NO comment about God at all in the article itself."
Wrong. As the author of the article, any statement you make about the article is fair game for the discussion. You did not mention god in the article, but then you made it clear separately that it was, in fact, god you had in mind as the designer. This was not taken out of context, you were simply trying (and failing; do you really believe that no one knows what your real beliefs are?) to obfuscate the issue.
Arguments like yours - in other words, people like you - are why atheists neither trust creationists or consider them honorable but mistaken adversaries: you constantly lie, and, perhaps worse, you really seem to believe that we are too credulous to be aware of it, because you make your lies so lame.
I do not argue with you because I believe you have an honest disagreement with science, that you simply misunderstand the concepts of cosmology and evolution. I do it because dishonesty like yours has to be exposed wherever it appears.
It is certainly not to The Christian Post's credit that you appear on their website. You are a disgrace to what you and they claim your beliefs to be. You, sir, are immoral.
Wrong. As the author of the article, any statement you make about the article is fair game for the discussion. You did not mention god in the article, but then you made it clear separately that it was, in fact, god you had in mind as the designer. This was not taken out of context, you were simply trying (and failing; do you really believe that no one knows what your real beliefs are?) to obfuscate the issue.
Arguments like yours - in other words, people like you - are why atheists neither trust creationists or consider them honorable but mistaken adversaries: you constantly lie, and, perhaps worse, you really seem to believe that we are too credulous to be aware of it, because you make your lies so lame.
I do not argue with you because I believe you have an honest disagreement with science, that you simply misunderstand the concepts of cosmology and evolution. I do it because dishonesty like yours has to be exposed wherever it appears.
It is certainly not to The Christian Post's credit that you appear on their website. You are a disgrace to what you and they claim your beliefs to be. You, sir, are immoral.
--GalapagosPete
12.October 05,2009, 11:11PM
“I made the correct calculations and there is no error, any high school student could tell you that.”
Allen, I am amazed that you still do not understand why your calculations are wrong. I do not have a Masters degree in mathematics, or even an undergraduate degree in mathematics, but your error was plain to me. I leave aside for now your assertions that these factors are all essential to life on Earth, and your asserted probabilities for these factors, and I will focus instead on how you have attempted to calculate an overall probability from these numbers.
The basic rule for calculating the probability that both A and B are true (P(A&B)) where A and B are independent is to multiply their individual probabilities: P(A&B) = P(A) x P(B). But this only works if A and B are independent. Let’s take a look at some examples.
If we want to know the probability that a randomly selected person is both bald and left-handed, we can multiply the probability that this person is bald by the probability that this person is left-handed to get the result: P(B&L) = P(B) x P(L).
But simple multiplication does not work if the two variables are not independent. For example, if you try to multiply the probability that a randomly selected person lives in England by the probability that a randomly selected person drives on the left side of the road, you will get a result that is much lower than the actual probability that a randomly selected person both lives in England and drives on the left side of the road: P(E) x P(L) =/= P(E&L).
Now, let’s take a look at your factors, and your calculation from them. Your simple multiplication only works if each of these factors is independent of every other factor in this group. However, you have not shown that these factors are independent. Moreover, several of these factors clearly are not independent. I’ve already pointed out that by your own admission the tilt of the Earth’s axis and the presence of the Moon are related. These are not the only pairs of your factors that are not independent, however. For instance, the ozone in the ozone layer comes from the molecular oxygen in Earth’s lower atmosphere, so these two factors are related. Moreover, by your own admission the molecular oxygen in our atmosphere is related to the volcanic activity of the Earth, which by your own admission is related to the Earth’s radioactivity. So all four of those factors – radioactivity, volcanism, molecular oxygen in the atmosphere, and ozone layer – are interrelated. That’s in addition to the two interrelated factors I had already cited to. I could go on, and point out some of the other relationships between these factors, but I think this is sufficient to show that your math is simply wrong.
Allen, I am amazed that you still do not understand why your calculations are wrong. I do not have a Masters degree in mathematics, or even an undergraduate degree in mathematics, but your error was plain to me. I leave aside for now your assertions that these factors are all essential to life on Earth, and your asserted probabilities for these factors, and I will focus instead on how you have attempted to calculate an overall probability from these numbers.
The basic rule for calculating the probability that both A and B are true (P(A&B)) where A and B are independent is to multiply their individual probabilities: P(A&B) = P(A) x P(B). But this only works if A and B are independent. Let’s take a look at some examples.
If we want to know the probability that a randomly selected person is both bald and left-handed, we can multiply the probability that this person is bald by the probability that this person is left-handed to get the result: P(B&L) = P(B) x P(L).
But simple multiplication does not work if the two variables are not independent. For example, if you try to multiply the probability that a randomly selected person lives in England by the probability that a randomly selected person drives on the left side of the road, you will get a result that is much lower than the actual probability that a randomly selected person both lives in England and drives on the left side of the road: P(E) x P(L) =/= P(E&L).
Now, let’s take a look at your factors, and your calculation from them. Your simple multiplication only works if each of these factors is independent of every other factor in this group. However, you have not shown that these factors are independent. Moreover, several of these factors clearly are not independent. I’ve already pointed out that by your own admission the tilt of the Earth’s axis and the presence of the Moon are related. These are not the only pairs of your factors that are not independent, however. For instance, the ozone in the ozone layer comes from the molecular oxygen in Earth’s lower atmosphere, so these two factors are related. Moreover, by your own admission the molecular oxygen in our atmosphere is related to the volcanic activity of the Earth, which by your own admission is related to the Earth’s radioactivity. So all four of those factors – radioactivity, volcanism, molecular oxygen in the atmosphere, and ozone layer – are interrelated. That’s in addition to the two interrelated factors I had already cited to. I could go on, and point out some of the other relationships between these factors, but I think this is sufficient to show that your math is simply wrong.
--JohnKandor
13.October 05,2009, 11:00PM
"Again I'm not here to PROVE the existence of a 'designer'. I show the evidence which is circumstantial, and you prove I'm wrong in the evidence. Neither of you have done that yet."
We're still waiting for evidence. We've already told you that specious odds about how common or uncommon Earth-type planets are isn't evidence, it's only playing with numbers. Come up with some evidence and we'll refute it.
"The term "freak accident of nature" is in common usage and applicable."
No, this is not merely a matter of semantics, as you would have the credulous believe. "Accident of nature" isn't a scientific term. Nowhere will you find a scientific paper referring to the "accident" of a volcanic eruption, or an earthquake, or the asteroid that is believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs, or the development of life on Earth.
"Where is the logic?"
Well, so far, not from your corner.
"I made the correct calculations and there is no error, any high school student would agree. Even if I considered your "error", it makes no difference in the outcome."
Yes, because we all know the most important thing in determining probability is getting the math right, not the methodology in assigning values to variables, or determining if the variables are legitimate in the first place.
"I'm glad you two finally agree with me that the earth is truly "unique"."
Apparently you do not understand the difference between "may very well be" and "is".
We're still waiting for evidence. We've already told you that specious odds about how common or uncommon Earth-type planets are isn't evidence, it's only playing with numbers. Come up with some evidence and we'll refute it.
"The term "freak accident of nature" is in common usage and applicable."
No, this is not merely a matter of semantics, as you would have the credulous believe. "Accident of nature" isn't a scientific term. Nowhere will you find a scientific paper referring to the "accident" of a volcanic eruption, or an earthquake, or the asteroid that is believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs, or the development of life on Earth.
"Where is the logic?"
Well, so far, not from your corner.
"I made the correct calculations and there is no error, any high school student would agree. Even if I considered your "error", it makes no difference in the outcome."
Yes, because we all know the most important thing in determining probability is getting the math right, not the methodology in assigning values to variables, or determining if the variables are legitimate in the first place.
"I'm glad you two finally agree with me that the earth is truly "unique"."
Apparently you do not understand the difference between "may very well be" and "is".
--GalapagosPete
14.October 05,2009, 5:07PM
JohnKandor said I was wrong about not saying "God did it" concerning my following comment about God,
>"Evolution happens! Its part of the overall process begun by God when He 'designed the system'."
Right. OK, moving on."<
Wrong: Taken out of context. We were discussing the ARTICLE when I said that I hadn't said "God did it". I made NO comment about God at all in the article itself.
>"And again, show some evidence that life could not have established itself elsewhere."<
I'm not here to prove life can't exist anywhere else. I made that clear. That is your job if you dispute my argument that it is unlikely.
>"But that doesn't establish the presence of any 'designer'."<
I AGREE!!!. Again I'm not here to PROVE the existence of a 'designer'. I show the evidence which is circumstantial, and you are to prove I'm wrong in the evidence. Neither of you have done that yet.
The term "freak accident of nature" is in common usage and applicable. Where is the logic? Who cares? This isn't an english lesson.
I made the correct calculations and there is no error, any high school student could tell you that. The term for 'tilt' was intentionally included because it was significant in its effect, that needed to be explained separately, but it was virtually insignificant in the calculation. I.e.even if I considered your "error", and eliminated it, it makes little difference in the outcome. The odds would still be 1 in a quadrillion vs 1 in 7.2 quadrillion. Is that point really important at that level. It still makes my argument. Does it prove that my argument is wrong. I don't think so.
I'm glad you two finally agree with me that the earth is truly "unique".
>"Evolution happens! Its part of the overall process begun by God when He 'designed the system'."
Right. OK, moving on."<
Wrong: Taken out of context. We were discussing the ARTICLE when I said that I hadn't said "God did it". I made NO comment about God at all in the article itself.
>"And again, show some evidence that life could not have established itself elsewhere."<
I'm not here to prove life can't exist anywhere else. I made that clear. That is your job if you dispute my argument that it is unlikely.
>"But that doesn't establish the presence of any 'designer'."<
I AGREE!!!. Again I'm not here to PROVE the existence of a 'designer'. I show the evidence which is circumstantial, and you are to prove I'm wrong in the evidence. Neither of you have done that yet.
The term "freak accident of nature" is in common usage and applicable. Where is the logic? Who cares? This isn't an english lesson.
I made the correct calculations and there is no error, any high school student could tell you that. The term for 'tilt' was intentionally included because it was significant in its effect, that needed to be explained separately, but it was virtually insignificant in the calculation. I.e.even if I considered your "error", and eliminated it, it makes little difference in the outcome. The odds would still be 1 in a quadrillion vs 1 in 7.2 quadrillion. Is that point really important at that level. It still makes my argument. Does it prove that my argument is wrong. I don't think so.
I'm glad you two finally agree with me that the earth is truly "unique".
--aepling
15.October 04,2009, 11:30PM
"Earth may very well be unique, but it is not any kind of 'accident'."
Of course, if you define a sufficiently large number of parameters, and confine them to sufficiently narrow ranges, you can define parameter spaces that are narrow enough that only one planet in the entire Universe falls into each of those parameter spaces.
But that doesn't establish the presence of any 'designer'.
Of course, if you define a sufficiently large number of parameters, and confine them to sufficiently narrow ranges, you can define parameter spaces that are narrow enough that only one planet in the entire Universe falls into each of those parameter spaces.
But that doesn't establish the presence of any 'designer'.
--JohnKandor
16.October 04,2009, 11:16PM
"The conditions on earth [sic] not being the 'norm' for any other planet we know of, makes it an freak 'accident' of nature, or design. One or the other. If you know of another place like the earth [sic], please tell me."
No, the word you're looking for is "unique." Earth may very well be unique, but it is not any kind of "accident."
And again, show some evidence that life could not have established itself elsewhere.
No, the word you're looking for is "unique." Earth may very well be unique, but it is not any kind of "accident."
And again, show some evidence that life could not have established itself elsewhere.
--GalapagosPete
17.October 04,2009, 11:04PM
"I did not say God did it."
"Evolution happens! Its part of the overall process begun by God when He 'designed the system'."
Right. OK, moving on.
If you really have a Masters degree in Mathematics, how do you account for the fact that you made a mistake in a probability calculation that an undergraduate would have spotted?
"Evolution happens! Its part of the overall process begun by God when He 'designed the system'."
Right. OK, moving on.
If you really have a Masters degree in Mathematics, how do you account for the fact that you made a mistake in a probability calculation that an undergraduate would have spotted?
--JohnKandor
18.October 04,2009, 10:29PM
John, I think we both need to recognize the problem here is not my math or my method, which is fairly scientific. It is your refusal to accept the truth, even when presented with it. I did not say God did it. I only presented the 'facts', facts that I will back up with a Master's degree in Mathematics and 21 years of teaching physics, science, and yes, mathematics. I challenge you to present them to any 'authority' you choose with similar credentials for verification. I fail to understand anyone who claims to know some measure of 'science' can not see that the earth is a special place, unlike any other that we have YET found in the universe. Even if EVERY star system has an "earth" around it, it would still be pretty special. I don't believe that is the case, but that is an "opinion". You are entitled to yours, but in math, there are numbersm, and the numbers tell me that the odds are that there are very few Earths around, if any. Can you understand that logic, or not?
--aepling
19.October 04,2009, 10:19PM
JohnKandor said: "Moreover, you still have not demonstrated that this is anything more than arm waving. Show us why these factors are necessary and independent. Show us where these probabilities came from."
I'm not the one doing the arm-waving here, and if you doubt my math, go ask your 8th grade math teacher if I'm right or not. I explained earlier that my calculations are 'estimated' but based on comparisons of conditions on the earth with with the solar system as a whole. If you have a problem with math, I'll explain it in detail.
If one planet out of 9 has an oxygen atmosphere sufficient to harbor life, then I used .1 as the probability for that happening somewhere else. All of the other 'estimated' probabilities were similarly calculated. Two planets have the tilt for seasons that earth has. That calculates to 2 out of 9, or .2. Do I need to go on or is that too much for you to understand?
I'm not the one doing the arm-waving here, and if you doubt my math, go ask your 8th grade math teacher if I'm right or not. I explained earlier that my calculations are 'estimated' but based on comparisons of conditions on the earth with with the solar system as a whole. If you have a problem with math, I'll explain it in detail.
If one planet out of 9 has an oxygen atmosphere sufficient to harbor life, then I used .1 as the probability for that happening somewhere else. All of the other 'estimated' probabilities were similarly calculated. Two planets have the tilt for seasons that earth has. That calculates to 2 out of 9, or .2. Do I need to go on or is that too much for you to understand?
--aepling
20.October 04,2009, 10:05PM
JohnKandor said:
"you have moved the goalposts to say that these are now the requirements for "anything but bacteria".
I had previously said:
>"If the world was without oxygen, tides, sun, you really think there would anything but bacteria around?"
I did not make the statement "these are now the requirements for "anything but bacteria".
Those were the words of JohnKandor,
John, when you cut and past my comments, please use the whole comment, and don't add your own words and say that I said them.
"you have moved the goalposts to say that these are now the requirements for "anything but bacteria".
I had previously said:
>"If the world was without oxygen, tides, sun, you really think there would anything but bacteria around?"
I did not make the statement "these are now the requirements for "anything but bacteria".
Those were the words of JohnKandor,
John, when you cut and past my comments, please use the whole comment, and don't add your own words and say that I said them.
--aepling
21.October 04,2009, 9:56PM
First, your math is just wrong, and it is wrong in a way that reveals that you do not understand probability calculations. If your probabilities were correct, independent, and reflective of actual requirements for the development of life (none of which you have established), then yes the scale of your error would not be very large compared to the overall probability you are asserting. This would not change the simple fact that you, personally, are unable to do probability calculations correctly. There is a right way to do math, and a wrong way. You are doing it wrong.
Moreover, you still have not demonstrated that this is anything more than arm waving. Show us why these factors are necessary and independent. Show us where these probabilities came from.
Moreover, you still have not demonstrated that this is anything more than arm waving. Show us why these factors are necessary and independent. Show us where these probabilities came from.
--JohnKandor
22.October 04,2009, 9:37PM
JohnKandor said:
"You can't simply multiply probabilities that are not independent to get an overall probability. That's basic probability. Since you've admitted that these two things are not independent, your mathematics is just wrong."
Sorry John, its basic math. If you don't believe me, multiply all the terms together, then do it again without the .2 being a term and see how much difference it makes. The final answer will still be around 1 quadrillion. Is the difference between 7.2 quadrillion and 1 quadrillion really that important to you, or you just don't understand the the significance? I feel like I'm back teaching basic math 101.
>"since "elephants, tigers, and bears" were nowhere to be found for most of Earth's history. Prior to 65 million years ago, was Earth not so "fine-tuned for life", since there were no elephants, tigers, or bears?"<
Really? How is that relevant to the topic? Evolution happens! Its part of the overall process begun by God when He "designed the system".
"You can't simply multiply probabilities that are not independent to get an overall probability. That's basic probability. Since you've admitted that these two things are not independent, your mathematics is just wrong."
Sorry John, its basic math. If you don't believe me, multiply all the terms together, then do it again without the .2 being a term and see how much difference it makes. The final answer will still be around 1 quadrillion. Is the difference between 7.2 quadrillion and 1 quadrillion really that important to you, or you just don't understand the the significance? I feel like I'm back teaching basic math 101.
>"since "elephants, tigers, and bears" were nowhere to be found for most of Earth's history. Prior to 65 million years ago, was Earth not so "fine-tuned for life", since there were no elephants, tigers, or bears?"<
Really? How is that relevant to the topic? Evolution happens! Its part of the overall process begun by God when He "designed the system".
--aepling
23.October 04,2009, 9:29PM
GalapagosPete said:
"It absolutely wasn't an accident, because "accident" implies some sort of intent by an intelligent agency."
The conditions on earth not being the 'norm' for any other planet we know of, makes it an freak 'accident' of nature, or design. One or the other. If you know of another place like the earth, please tell me.
"It absolutely wasn't an accident, because "accident" implies some sort of intent by an intelligent agency."
The conditions on earth not being the 'norm' for any other planet we know of, makes it an freak 'accident' of nature, or design. One or the other. If you know of another place like the earth, please tell me.
--aepling
24.October 04,2009, 9:25PM
"If the world was without oxygen, tides, sun, you really think there would anything but bacteria around?"
"I did not EVER say 'anything but bacteria'."
Right. OK, moving on.
"The probability of the earth's tilt is separate from the issue with the moon, even though it was caused by the creation of the moon."
You can't simply multiply probabilities that are not independent to get an overall probability. That's basic probability. Since you've admitted that these two things are not independent, your mathematics is just wrong.
"I assumed that everyone would understand that I was talking about life on earth as we know it. That includes elephants, tigers, and bears, and yes, amoebas and bacteria."
Well, you may have assumed that but you never stated it. In fact, it seems an odd premise, since "elephants, tigers, and bears" were nowhere to be found for most of Earth's history. Prior to 65 million years ago, was Earth not so "fine-tuned for life", since there were no elephants, tigers, or bears?
Overall, you've made a number of assertions that lack any substantiation. What is your basis for asserting that these factors are essential for life (at least the ones that haven't already been shot down)? What is your basis for assigning these probabilities to these factors? And what is your basis for asserting that each of these factors is independent of the others?
"I did not EVER say 'anything but bacteria'."
Right. OK, moving on.
"The probability of the earth's tilt is separate from the issue with the moon, even though it was caused by the creation of the moon."
You can't simply multiply probabilities that are not independent to get an overall probability. That's basic probability. Since you've admitted that these two things are not independent, your mathematics is just wrong.
"I assumed that everyone would understand that I was talking about life on earth as we know it. That includes elephants, tigers, and bears, and yes, amoebas and bacteria."
Well, you may have assumed that but you never stated it. In fact, it seems an odd premise, since "elephants, tigers, and bears" were nowhere to be found for most of Earth's history. Prior to 65 million years ago, was Earth not so "fine-tuned for life", since there were no elephants, tigers, or bears?
Overall, you've made a number of assertions that lack any substantiation. What is your basis for asserting that these factors are essential for life (at least the ones that haven't already been shot down)? What is your basis for assigning these probabilities to these factors? And what is your basis for asserting that each of these factors is independent of the others?
--JohnKandor
25.October 04,2009, 8:59PM
"The basic premise of this article is only that the conditions on earth [sic] are perfect for intelligent life to develope [sic]."
You have no way of knowing whether conditions on Earth are the only conditions that would support intelligent life. It may very well be that there is a wide range of conditions that could support intelligent life. True, there is a fairly narrow range that would support OUR type of life, but it's extremely parochial of you to assume that our type is the only type of intelligence that could ever exist.
"Was it accidental,(one in a quadrillion), or some sort of "design". you tell me."
That is a false dichotomy. In fact, as far as we can tell from the evidence, it was neither. It was a natural event.
There is no evidence of a "designer". A designer could have made us frigid-blooded acid breathers living on a planet with wobbly poles 400 miles from the Sun., so any particular form of life is no evidence for a designer. I've told you this before but you don't seem to have an answer for it.
It absolutely wasn't an accident, because "accident" implies some sort of intent by an intelligent agency. The agency intended to do "A" but did "B" instead of, or in addition to, "A".
Since there is no evidence to support the existence of advanced aliens or gods who could, accidentally or otherwise, create a planet, give it a moon, tilt it appropriately, etc., the default position is that the development of life on Earth and of Earth itself simply was a natural event, regardless of the so-called "odds" you made up.
But, if you have evidence of any such beings - apart from completely unsupported claims that life is too complex to have developed without a designer, or anything else you've presented here - please share it.
You have no way of knowing whether conditions on Earth are the only conditions that would support intelligent life. It may very well be that there is a wide range of conditions that could support intelligent life. True, there is a fairly narrow range that would support OUR type of life, but it's extremely parochial of you to assume that our type is the only type of intelligence that could ever exist.
"Was it accidental,(one in a quadrillion), or some sort of "design". you tell me."
That is a false dichotomy. In fact, as far as we can tell from the evidence, it was neither. It was a natural event.
There is no evidence of a "designer". A designer could have made us frigid-blooded acid breathers living on a planet with wobbly poles 400 miles from the Sun., so any particular form of life is no evidence for a designer. I've told you this before but you don't seem to have an answer for it.
It absolutely wasn't an accident, because "accident" implies some sort of intent by an intelligent agency. The agency intended to do "A" but did "B" instead of, or in addition to, "A".
Since there is no evidence to support the existence of advanced aliens or gods who could, accidentally or otherwise, create a planet, give it a moon, tilt it appropriately, etc., the default position is that the development of life on Earth and of Earth itself simply was a natural event, regardless of the so-called "odds" you made up.
But, if you have evidence of any such beings - apart from completely unsupported claims that life is too complex to have developed without a designer, or anything else you've presented here - please share it.
--GalapagosPete
26.October 04,2009, 8:29PM
JohnKandor: "Now that some of your factors have been demonstrated to be non-essential for life, you have moved the goalposts to say that these are now the requirements for "anything but bacteria".
I assumed that everyone would understand that I was talking about life on earth as we know it. That includes elephants, tigers, and bears, and yes, amoebas and bacteria. I did not EVER say "anything but bacteria".
>"it should be pointed out that you already listed that as a different factor, to which you assigned a probability of 0.2. Well, which is it? Is is 0.0001 or is it 0.2?"<
The probability of the earth's tilt is separate from the issue with the moon, even though it was caused by the creation of the moon. Its influence justified a separate probability. The moon had so many factors in its influence that I gave the whole set a factor of .0001. Even if I factored the tilt into the .0001, the difference would be insignificant, 2 as compared to 10,000?
>"since the tilt of Earth's axis is roughly the same as that of Mars (there goes that super-special uniqueness), and since you seem to be pulling these numbers purely out of the air, is there any reason why we shouldn't dismiss you postings as the work of an ill-informed crank?"<
If you had seriously given any thought to the .2 probability, you would have recognized that .2 is 2/10ths. I considered Mars as the other planet of the 9 we recognize (counting Pluto). That makes 2 of 9 or ~.22. All of the other factors were considered the same way, the earth as compared to the 9 major bodies of the solar system and computed accordingly, based on the idea that the solar system is a typical planetary system. In the case of the moon, I considered the probability of any planet, anywhere, in any other planetary system, experiencing a similar planetary collision, with the same results. Without that event, I believe the earth would never have been anything but a dead rock with no magnetic field, molten core, and its water, oxygen, and other necessities buried in the rock deep under the surface, all, ideas supported and reported on by leaders in the field of astronomy.
I had previously taken your comments seriously until the "crank" part, and I realized that this is not about science,accuracy, or even the article itself. When a commenter lacks the logic for serious debate and resorts to attacking the author on a personal basis, falling to the level namecalling, I feel it is time to move on to more serious, and thoughtful subjects. Any other comments of that nature, scientific or not, will be deleted
I assumed that everyone would understand that I was talking about life on earth as we know it. That includes elephants, tigers, and bears, and yes, amoebas and bacteria. I did not EVER say "anything but bacteria".
>"it should be pointed out that you already listed that as a different factor, to which you assigned a probability of 0.2. Well, which is it? Is is 0.0001 or is it 0.2?"<
The probability of the earth's tilt is separate from the issue with the moon, even though it was caused by the creation of the moon. Its influence justified a separate probability. The moon had so many factors in its influence that I gave the whole set a factor of .0001. Even if I factored the tilt into the .0001, the difference would be insignificant, 2 as compared to 10,000?
>"since the tilt of Earth's axis is roughly the same as that of Mars (there goes that super-special uniqueness), and since you seem to be pulling these numbers purely out of the air, is there any reason why we shouldn't dismiss you postings as the work of an ill-informed crank?"<
If you had seriously given any thought to the .2 probability, you would have recognized that .2 is 2/10ths. I considered Mars as the other planet of the 9 we recognize (counting Pluto). That makes 2 of 9 or ~.22. All of the other factors were considered the same way, the earth as compared to the 9 major bodies of the solar system and computed accordingly, based on the idea that the solar system is a typical planetary system. In the case of the moon, I considered the probability of any planet, anywhere, in any other planetary system, experiencing a similar planetary collision, with the same results. Without that event, I believe the earth would never have been anything but a dead rock with no magnetic field, molten core, and its water, oxygen, and other necessities buried in the rock deep under the surface, all, ideas supported and reported on by leaders in the field of astronomy.
I had previously taken your comments seriously until the "crank" part, and I realized that this is not about science,accuracy, or even the article itself. When a commenter lacks the logic for serious debate and resorts to attacking the author on a personal basis, falling to the level namecalling, I feel it is time to move on to more serious, and thoughtful subjects. Any other comments of that nature, scientific or not, will be deleted
--aepling
27.October 04,2009, 6:47PM
Allen, you started out by saying "Change any factor listed below significantly and life on earth could not exist." Now that some of your factors have been demonstrated to be non-essential for life, you have moved the goalposts to say that these are now the requirements for "anything but bacteria". You also seem to think that amoebae are a type of bacteria, or that they are the same thing as bacteria. They are not.
Second, if your issue with the Moon is that it is responsible for the axial tilt of the Earth, it should be pointed out that you already listed that as a different factor, to which you assigned a probability of 0.2. Well, which is it? Is is 0.0001 or is it 0.2?
And why are you counting this factor twice?
Anyway, since the tilt of Earth's axis is roughly the same as that of Mars (there goes that super-special uniqueness), and since you seem to be pulling these numbers purely out of the air, is there any reason why we shouldn't dismiss you postings as the work of an ill-informed crank?
Second, if your issue with the Moon is that it is responsible for the axial tilt of the Earth, it should be pointed out that you already listed that as a different factor, to which you assigned a probability of 0.2. Well, which is it? Is is 0.0001 or is it 0.2?
And why are you counting this factor twice?
Anyway, since the tilt of Earth's axis is roughly the same as that of Mars (there goes that super-special uniqueness), and since you seem to be pulling these numbers purely out of the air, is there any reason why we shouldn't dismiss you postings as the work of an ill-informed crank?
--JohnKandor
28.October 03,2009, 10:02PM
>"According to your beliefs, Earth could have whatever life its creator wanted living in any conditions its creator created, right?"<
No, I didn't say that. The basic premise of this article is only that the conditions on earth are perfect for intelligent life to develope. Was it accidental,(one in a quadrillion), or some sort of "design". you tell me.
No, I didn't say that. The basic premise of this article is only that the conditions on earth are perfect for intelligent life to develope. Was it accidental,(one in a quadrillion), or some sort of "design". you tell me.
--aepling
29.October 03,2009, 9:54PM
>"Presumably, if we were swimming happily around in acid on a planet that had an orbit where Jupiter's is you would also be making claims about how the planet was "fine tuned" for our type of life."<
Your argument's irrelevant since that is not scientifically possible
If God set down the rules,(physical laws) first, it seems logical he would create life to follow those laws.
Your argument's irrelevant since that is not scientifically possible
If God set down the rules,(physical laws) first, it seems logical he would create life to follow those laws.
--aepling
30.October 03,2009, 9:36PM
"If the world was without oxygen, tides, sun, you really think there would anything but bacteria around? When I say it was fine-tuned for life, I mean ALL life, not just amoebas."
According to your beliefs, Earth could have whatever life its creator wanted living in any conditions its creator created, right?
Again, this being the case, how is any particular set of conditions evidence of "fine tuning" if the conditions don't make any difference?
Presumably, if we were swimming happily around in acid on a planet that had an orbit where Jupiter's is you would also be making claims about how the planet was "fine tuned" for our type of life.
According to your beliefs, Earth could have whatever life its creator wanted living in any conditions its creator created, right?
Again, this being the case, how is any particular set of conditions evidence of "fine tuning" if the conditions don't make any difference?
Presumably, if we were swimming happily around in acid on a planet that had an orbit where Jupiter's is you would also be making claims about how the planet was "fine tuned" for our type of life.
--GalapagosPete
31.October 03,2009, 6:37PM
>"Of course, several of the "requirements" listed here are nothing of the sort. Oxygen isn't a requirement for all life: anaerobic life forms get along very well without it."<
If the world was without oxygen, tides, sun, you really think there would anything but bacteria around?
When I say it was fine-tuned for life, I mean ALL life, not just amoebas.
>"Likewise the Moon is not a requirement for life: many if not most species are not significantly affected by the tides, and don't forget that the Sun also produces tides."<
You also miss the point about the moon. Sure we could take out the moon NOW and probably not be tremendously affected. What I'm saying, and others before me, is that the EVENT, one in a million, that created the moon, set up the earth for life by tilting the earth on its axis, re-melting the earth so that all the elements settled in layers and formed a molten core, and allowed all the water to collect near the surface, instead of being trapped below in rocks, as Mars probably has. How many times has a small planet like earth been struck by another similar planet in this solar system,or any other, to create a moon like ours. We might not be here but for that one event.
If the world was without oxygen, tides, sun, you really think there would anything but bacteria around?
When I say it was fine-tuned for life, I mean ALL life, not just amoebas.
>"Likewise the Moon is not a requirement for life: many if not most species are not significantly affected by the tides, and don't forget that the Sun also produces tides."<
You also miss the point about the moon. Sure we could take out the moon NOW and probably not be tremendously affected. What I'm saying, and others before me, is that the EVENT, one in a million, that created the moon, set up the earth for life by tilting the earth on its axis, re-melting the earth so that all the elements settled in layers and formed a molten core, and allowed all the water to collect near the surface, instead of being trapped below in rocks, as Mars probably has. How many times has a small planet like earth been struck by another similar planet in this solar system,or any other, to create a moon like ours. We might not be here but for that one event.
--aepling
32.October 03,2009, 2:37PM
Should have read " . . . would be completely unaffected . . ."
--JohnKandor
33.October 03,2009, 2:36PM
Of course, several of the "requirements" listed here are nothing of the sort. Oxygen isn't a requirement for all life: anaerobic life forms get along very well without it. Even heat and light from the Sun isn't a requirement for life: the extremophiles that get their energy from underwater volcanoes and steam vents would not be completely unaffected if the Sun were to burn out tomorrow. Likewise the Moon is not a requirement for life: many if not most species are not significantly affected by the tides, and don't forget that the Sun also produces tides.
Sorry Allen, but your "requirements" are nothing of the sort.
Sorry Allen, but your "requirements" are nothing of the sort.
--JohnKandor
34.October 03,2009, 1:59PM
If God can make any sort of being to live and thrive in any sort of environment, how is this arrangement evidence of "fine-tuning"? It just happens to be the way it worked out, and we evolved to fit it.
--GalapagosPete
35.October 03,2009, 1:52PM
GalapagosPete >"By arguing that the Earth is "fine-tuned" for life, you're saying that God cannot create other forms of life that would be just as happy living on Mars, or Jupiter, or swimming in hydrochloric acid, or the vacuum of space, bathed in hard radiation"<
I didn't say any such thing. He has the right and ability to do it any way He wishes. I don't make the rules, He does. By the way, where in my post did I even mention "God".
I didn't say any such thing. He has the right and ability to do it any way He wishes. I don't make the rules, He does. By the way, where in my post did I even mention "God".
--aepling
36.October 03,2009, 1:11PM
By arguing that the Earth is "fine-tuned" for life, you're saying that God cannot create other forms of life that would be just as happy living on Mars, or Jupiter, or swimming in hydrochloric acid, or the vacuum of space, bathed in hard radiation.
--GalapagosPete
37.October 03,2009, 9:15AM
GAGA:>" or is life fine-tuned for earth? ;)"<
HMM, could be!
RICK_K:>" Of course, you give the presence of a moon a chance of 1 in 10,000. Now, how many planets in our system DON'T have moons?"<
As to be expected, the significance of how our moon formed and why none of the other planets have moons like ours, for a planet this size, blew right over you.
HMM, could be!
RICK_K:>" Of course, you give the presence of a moon a chance of 1 in 10,000. Now, how many planets in our system DON'T have moons?"<
As to be expected, the significance of how our moon formed and why none of the other planets have moons like ours, for a planet this size, blew right over you.
--aepling
38.October 03,2009, 6:48AM
or is life fine-tuned for earth? ;)
--gaga
39.October 02,2009, 11:09PM
Number of stars in the known universe, approximately 1 followed by 22 zeros.
So that means tens of thousands of perfect places for life, assuming your made-up numbers are correct. Of course, you give the presence of a moon a chance of 1 in 10,000. Now, how many planets in our system DON'T have moons?
And of course, you're assuming there is only one way for life to form.
Winning the state lottery twice seems impossible to everyone except to the lady in Missouri who did it.
I know it's really really really important for you to think you're divinely chosen. But this article is very weak.
Dawkins does a MUCH better job of conveying the cosmic improbability of any one particular person being alive. Of all the possible combinations of DNA from all your various ancestors back to the beginning of sex, and all the possible sharings of DNA back to the beginning of DNA, and all the divisions and mutations back to the beginning of life, and all the molecular movements before life... if any one of them had been the tiniest bit different, you wouldn't be alive.
Stop trying to prove you're part of God's plan, and just be glad to be alive. After all, you're one of the lucky winners of the greatest lottery there is. Congratulate everyone you meet tomorrow, and you'll have a wonderful day.
So that means tens of thousands of perfect places for life, assuming your made-up numbers are correct. Of course, you give the presence of a moon a chance of 1 in 10,000. Now, how many planets in our system DON'T have moons?
And of course, you're assuming there is only one way for life to form.
Winning the state lottery twice seems impossible to everyone except to the lady in Missouri who did it.
I know it's really really really important for you to think you're divinely chosen. But this article is very weak.
Dawkins does a MUCH better job of conveying the cosmic improbability of any one particular person being alive. Of all the possible combinations of DNA from all your various ancestors back to the beginning of sex, and all the possible sharings of DNA back to the beginning of DNA, and all the divisions and mutations back to the beginning of life, and all the molecular movements before life... if any one of them had been the tiniest bit different, you wouldn't be alive.
Stop trying to prove you're part of God's plan, and just be glad to be alive. After all, you're one of the lucky winners of the greatest lottery there is. Congratulate everyone you meet tomorrow, and you'll have a wonderful day.
--Rick_K
40.October 02,2009, 7:03PM
Its called "Heaven" and you aren't there yet.
--aepling
41.October 02,2009, 6:05PM
No, I would be happier on a universally temperate planet with absolutely precise rainfall patterns with a pangaea continent surrounded by pure water that doesn't periodically wash a few hundred thousand humans off of its surface with a typhoon.
Please, demonstrate to me on what concept of "omnipotence" would such a world be impossible for God.
Please, demonstrate to me on what concept of "omnipotence" would such a world be impossible for God.
--Homoousia316
42.October 02,2009, 5:47PM
Perhaps you would be happier on Mars?
I would argue those points but it reminds me too much of Glenn Beck's new book.
I would argue those points but it reminds me too much of Glenn Beck's new book.
--aepling
43.October 02,2009, 5:37PM
Our planet is up to 80% uninhabitable. Every year, thousands of people die in earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, landslides, lightning strikes, and the like. Our atmosphere thins at random and sucks up toxic carbon emissions like a sponge.
If this planet is supposed to be designed for humans, then this planet was designed by an idiot.
If this planet is supposed to be designed for humans, then this planet was designed by an idiot.
--Homoousia316
About this blog
A blog that will tell you everything you need to know about Creation and Evolution.
Subscribe
Recent Posts
-
November 16,2009 | Comments
0 -
November 04,2009 | Comments 0
-
October 15,2009 | Comments 4
-
October 15,2009 | Comments 6
-
October 09,2009 | Comments 0
-
October 02,2009 | Comments 43
Contributor
A former teacher of physics and Math, he holds an MA degree in mathematics and the post graduate degree of Rank I in Education. His passion is Astronomy and staying current in Quantum Physics.
Most Popular
Most Commented
- Genesis and the Big Bang Revisited
- Was the Earth Fine-Tuned for Life?
- Who Are They, Evolutionists, Theistic Evolutionists, and Anti-Evolutionists?
- Searching for "Proof" of the Soul
- Quantum Entanglement: A 'Type' of "The God Connection"?
- Fine-Tuned Earth Part II: Comparing to Drake's Equation
Tag List
Most Popular on CP
Most Commented on CP
- 'Imagine No Religion' Billboards Hit Detroit
- Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games
- Report: Over 350 Public Schools Teaching the Bible
- 'Ardi' Reverses Common Understanding of Human Evolution
- Protestants, Catholics Celebrate 10 Years of Consensus on Salvation
- Film Uncovers Dark Underworld of Modern-Day Slavery
- 'Blasphemy Day' Draws Fire from Event Sponsor's Founder
- 'Ardi' Reverses Common Understanding of Human Evolution
- Protestants, Catholics Celebrate 10 Years of Consensus on Salvation
- 'Imagine No Religion' Billboards Hit Detroit
- Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games
- Judge Orders Prop. 8 Proponents to Release Private Records
- Prayerful Americans Called to 'Adopt a Liberal'
- Report: Over 350 Public Schools Teaching the Bible
RSS