"Something from Nothing" Discussion Thread

[Mariolee]

I don't quite understand the first thing about physics and science, but I thought this video from Dawkins and Krauss would be a good jumping off point for some new discussion about how they feel about religion and science and what roles they play with each other, and how much their views are represented by the scientific community.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rd ... r_embedded

[Stu]

Well I'm about 15 minutes in and it's all the same stuff we've heard before. Will carry on a little and see if things liven up, but not sure how much more I can take of this particular format.

If someone actually does sit through the whole thing could you perhaps note down the time when they actually talk about a "first cause", etc. Not sure if I can't sit through 2 hours of Dawkins rehashing his same ol' schtik.

[CallMeDave]

I don't quite understand the first thing about physics and science, but I thought this video from Dawkins and Krauss would be a good jumping off point for some new discussion about how they feel about religion and science and what roles they play with each other, and how much their views are represented by the scientific community.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rd ... r_embedded

When you consider just how razor edge precise our Universe has to be in order for it to be created and daily sustained for us to be here and enjoy life ....it is so incredibly absurd that our Universe came about by 'Nothing from nothing (and allegedly) without a shred of purpose' as top Atheists would have us believe . Consider the following and ask yourself if Nothing could make these occur :




The Cosmological Constant is to within 120 decimal places and the
Expansion Rate of the Universe according to Prof. Stephen Hawkins is
1/1,000,000 th otherwise we arent here. Considering these two , plus
the following that has been scientifically verified, it is completely
absurd to think this Universe/Solar System/Earth wasnt pre-planned ,
incredibly well designed , and Created by a Mind at work ....and one
is so powerful that it boggles the Mind. Your ultimate purpose to
living is to get to know this obvious personal Creator , and the ball
is in your court ; the wise among us make the effort putting aside
pride :

The table below lists the parameters required for a planet to be able
to sustain life. Individually, the probabilities of occurrence of each
parameter are not particularly impressive. The fact that all of these
parameters are found on the Earth is extremely impressive, indicating
an extreme deviation from random chance. The probability values below
are ones obtained from that observed in the universe as a whole.

Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support

galaxy size (9) (p = 0.1)
if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun's orbit and
ignite deadly galactic eruptions
if too small: infusion of gas would be insufficient to sustain star
formation long enough for life to form
galaxy type (7) (p = 0.1)
if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy
elements formed for life chemistry
if too irregular: radiation exposure would be too severe (at times)
and life-essential heavy elements would not form
galaxy location (9) (p = 0.1)
if too close to dense galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally
unstable, hence unsuitable for life
if too close to large galaxy(ies): same result
supernovae eruptions (8) (p = 0.01)
if too close: radiation would exterminate life
if too far: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to form
if too infrequent: same result
if too frequent: radiation would exterminate life
if too soon: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to form
if too late: radiation would exterminate life
white dwarf binaries (8) (p = 0.01)
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: orbits of life-supportable planets would be disrupted;
life would be exterminated
if too soon: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption (9)
if farther: insufficient heavy elements would be attracted for life chemistry
if closer: nebula would be blown apart
timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption (9)
if earlier: nebula would be blown apart
if later: nebula would not attract enough heavy elements for life chemistry
parent star distance from center of galaxy (9) (p = 0.2)
if greater: insufficient heavy elements would be available for rocky
planet formation
if lesser: radiation would be too intense for life; stellar density
would disturb planetary orbits, making life impossible
parent star distance from closest spiral arm (9) (p = 0.1)
if too small: radiation from other stars would be too intense and the
stellar density would disturb orbits of life-supportable planets
if too great: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient for
formation of life-supportable planets
z-axis range of star's orbit (9) (p = 0.1)
if too wide: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be
too great
number of stars in the planetary system (10) (p = 0.2)
if more than one: tidal interactions would make the orbits of
life-supportable planets too unstable for life
if fewer than one: no heat source would be available for life chemistry
parent star birth date (9) (p = 0.2)
if more recent: star burning would still be unstable; stellar system
would contain too many heavy elements for life chemistry
if less recent: stellar system would contain insufficient heavy
elements for life chemistry
parent star age (9) (p = 0.4)
if older: star's luminosity would be too erratic for life support
if younger: same result
parent star mass (10) (p = 0.001)
if greater: star's luminosity would be too erratic and star would burn
up too quickly to support life
if lesser: life support zone would be too narrow; rotation period of
life-supportable planet would be too long; UV radiation would be
insufficient for photosynthesis
parent star metallicity (9) (p = 0.05)
if too little: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist
if too great: radioactivity would be too intense for life; heavy
element concentrations would be poisonous to life
parent star color (9) (p = 0.4)
if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient to sustain life
if bluer: same result
H3+ production (23) (p = 0.1)
if too little: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life
chemistry would never form
if too great: planets would form at the wrong time and place for life
parent star luminosity (11) (p = 0.0001)
if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop
if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop
surface gravity (governs escape velocity) (12) (p = 0.001)
if stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and
methane for life
if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water for life
distance from parent star (13) (p = 0.001)
if greater: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle
if lesser: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle
inclination of orbit (22) (p = 0.5)
if too great: temperature range on the planet's surface would be too
extreme for life
orbital eccentricity (9) (p = 0.3)
if too great: seasonal temperature range would be too extreme for life
axial tilt (9) (p = 0.3)
if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great to
sustain diverse life-forms
if lesser: same result
rate of change of axial tilt (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: climatic and temperature changes would be too extreme for life
rotation period (11) (p = 0.1)
if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great for life
if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great for life
rate of change in rotation period (14) (p = 0.05)
if more rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be
too extreme for sustained life
if less rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be
too slow for the development of advanced life
planet's age (9) (p = 0.1)
if too young: planet would rotate too rapidly for life
if too old: planet would rotate too slowly for life
magnetic field (20) (p = 0.01)
if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe
if weaker: planetary surface and ozone layer would be inadequately
protected from hard solar and stellar radiation
thickness of crust (15) (p = 0.01)
if greater: crust would rob atmosphere of oxygen needed for life
if lesser: volcanic and tectonic activity would be destructive to life
albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)
(9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: runaway glaciation would develop
if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
asteroid and comet collision rates (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: ecosystem balances would be destroyed
if less: crust would contain too little of certain life-essential elements
mass of body colliding with primordial earth (9) (0 = 0.002)
if greater: Earth's orbit and form would be too greatly disturbed for life
if lesser: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would
be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining role
timing of above collision (9) (p = 0.05)
if earlier: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would
be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining role
if later: Earth's atmosphere would be too thin for life; sun would be
too luminous for subsequent life
oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere (25) (p = 0.1)
if greater: advanced life functions would proceed too rapidly
if lesser: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly
carbon dioxide level in atmosphere (21) (p = 0.01)
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis
water vapor quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced land life
atmospheric electric discharge rate (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: fires would be too frequent and widespread for life
if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere
ozone quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: surface temperatures would be too low for life;
insufficient UV radiation for life
if less: surface temperatures would be too high for life; UV radiation
would be too intense for life
oxygen quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily,
destabilizing Earth's ecosystem
if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe
seismic activity (16) (p = 0.1)
if greater: life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged
if less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be
recycled to continents through tectonics; not enough carbon dioxide
would be released from carbonate buildup
volcanic activity (26)
if lower: insufficient amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor would
be returned to the atmosphere; soil mineralization would be
insufficient for life advanced life support
if higher: advanced life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged
rate of decline in tectonic activity (26) (p = 0.1)
if slower: crust conditions would be too unstable for advanced life
if faster: crust nutrients would be inadequate for sustained land life
rate of decline in volcanic activity (9) (p = 0.1)
if slower: crust and surface conditions would be unsuitable for
sustained land life
if faster: crust and surface nutrients would be inadequate for
sustained land life
oceans-to-continents ratio (11) (p = 0.2)
if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited
if smaller: same result
rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio (9) (p = 0.1)
if smaller: land area would be insufficient for advanced life
if greater: change would be too radical for advanced life to survive
distribution of continents (10) (p = 0.3)
if too much in the Southern Hemisphere: sea-salt aerosols would be
insufficient to stabilize surface temperature and water cycle;
increased seasonal differences would limit the available habitats for
advanced land life
frequency and extent of ice ages (9) (p = 0.1)
if lesser: Earth's surface would lack fertile valleys essential for
advanced life; mineral concentrations would be insufficient for
advanced life.
if greater: Earth would experience runaway freezing
soil mineralization (9) (p = 0.1)
if nutrient poorer: diversity and complexity of lifeforms would be limited
if nutrient richer: same result
gravitational interaction with a moon (17) (p = 0.1)
if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational
period would be too severe for life
if lesser: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic
instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the
continents and vice versa would be insufficient for life; magnetic
field would be too weak to protect life from dangerous radiation
Jupiter distance (18) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from frequent
asteroid and comet collisions
if lesser: Jupiter’s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit
Jupiter mass (19) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Jupiter’s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit 9
if lesser: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from asteroid and
comet collisions
drift in (major) planet distances (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be destabilized
if less: asteroid and comet collisions would be too frequent for life
major planet orbital eccentricities (18) (p = 0.05)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone
major planet orbital instabilities (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone
atmospheric pressure (9) (p = 0.1)
if smaller: liquid water would evaporate too easily and condense too
infrequently to support life
if greater: inadequate liquid water evaporation to support life;
insufficient sunlight would reach Earth's surface; insufficient UV
radiation would reach Earth's surface
atmospheric transparency (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: too broad a range of solar radiation wavelengths would
reach Earth's surface for life support
if lesser: too narrow a range of solar radiation wavelengths would
reach Earth's surface for life support
chlorine quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be
too high for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too high for
most life forms
if lesser: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too
low for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too low for most
life forms
iron quantity in oceans and soils (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: iron poisoning would destroy advanced life
if lesser: food to support advanced life would be insufficient
if very small: no life would be possible
tropospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: advanced animals would experience respiratory failure;
crop yields would be inadequate for advanced life; ozone-sensitive
species would be unable to survive
if smaller: biochemical smog would hinder or destroy most life
stratospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: not enough LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface to
produce food and life-essential vitamins
if lesser: too much LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface, causing
skin cancers and reducing plant growth
mesospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases would
disturb relative abundance of life-essential gases in lower atmosphere
if lesser: same result
frequency and extent of forest and grass fires (24) (p = 0.01)
if greater: advanced life would be impossible
if lesser: accumulation of growth inhibitors, combined with
insufficient nitrification, would make soil unsuitable for food
production
quantity of soil sulfur (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: plants would be destroyed by sulfur toxins, soil acidity,
and disturbance of the nitrogen cycle
if lesser: plants would die from An organic compound made of amino
acids arranged in a linear chain, joined together by peptide bonds
between the carboxyl and amino groups of the adjacent amino acid
residues.protein deficiency
biomass to comet-infall ratio (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: greenhouse gases would decline, triggering runaway freezing
if lesser: greenhouse gases would accumulate, triggering runaway
greenhouse effect
quantity of sulfur in planet's core (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: solid inner core would never form, disrupting magnetic field
if smaller: solid inner core formation would begin too soon, causing
it to grow too rapidly and extensively, disrupting magnetic field
quantity of sea-salt aerosols (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: too much and too rapid cloud formation over the oceans
would disrupt the climate and atmospheric temperature balances
if smaller: insufficient cloud formation; hence, inadequate water
cycle; disrupts atmospheric temperature balances and hence the climate
dependency factors (estimate 100,000,000,000)
longevity requirements (estimate .00001)
Total Probability = 1:1099

Click here to see these parameters in table format.
Updated List of parameters
Taken from Big Bang Refined by Fire by Dr. Hugh Ross, 1998. Reasons To
Believe, Pasadena, CA.
By putting together probabilities for each of these design features
occurring by chance, we can calculate the probability of the existence
of a planet like Earth. This probability is 1 chance in 1099. Since
there are estimated to be a maximum of 1023 planets in the universe
(10 planets/star, see note below), by chance there shouldn't be any
planets capable of supporting life in the universe (only one chance in
1076). Design or random chance?
Don't we ALL believe in miracles?

Note: This is most likely a huge over estimate. In a recent survey of
globular cluster 47 Tucanae, scientists found zero extrasolar planets
out of 37,000 stars searched (Astronomers Ponder Lack of Planets in
Globular Cluster from the Hubble Space Telescope).
Related Resources

Moons Like Earth's Moon are Rare in the Universe
God of the Gaps - Do All Christian Apologetics Fall Into This Kind of Argument?
Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe by Peter D.
Ward and Donald Brownlee
A recent (2000) secular book that recognizes the improbable design of
the earth. Paleontologist Peter D. Ward and astrobiologist Donald
Brownlee examine the unusual characteristics of our galaxy, solar
system, star, and Earth and conclude that ET may have no home to go
to. Surprisingly, the authors conclude that the amazing "coincidences"
are the result of good luck and chance.
The Creator and the Cosmos by Dr. Hugh Ross
A classic book for modern Christian apologetics and science, recently
updated (June, 2001) with fully one third of the book updated. Dr.
Ross presents the latest scientific evidence for intelligent design of
our world and an easy to understand introduction to modern cosmology.
This is a great book to give agnostics, who have an interest in
cosmology and astronomy.
References

Peterson, Ivars. 1993. Newton's Clock: Chaos in the Solar System, W.H.
Freeman and Co.
Taylor, G. Jeffrey. July, 1994. "The scientific legacy of Apollo"
Scientific American 271 (1): 40-47.
Giant Impact Theory For Moon Formation Boosted (from SpaceDaily.com)
Rudnick, R. 1995. Making continental crust. Nature 378:571-578.
Maher, K.A. and D.J. Stevenson. 1988. Impact frustrations of the
origin of life. Nature 331: 612-614.
Rasio, F.A. and E.B. Ford. 1996. Dynamical instabilities and the
formation of extrasolar planetary systems. Science 274: 954-956.
Dicke, R.H. 1961. Dirac's cosmology and Mach's principle. Nature 192: 440.
Cowen, R. 1992. Were spiral galaxies once more common? Science News 142: 390.
Dressler, et al. 1994. New images of the distant rich cluster, CL
0939+4713 with WFPC2. Astrophysical Journal Letters 435: L23-L26.
Davies, R.E. and R. H. Koch. 1991. All the observed universe has
contributed to life. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
of London, series B 334: 391-403.
Ross, H. 1995. The Creator and the Cosmos. NavPress, Colorado Springs,
CO, chapters 14 and 15
Ross, H. 1998. Big Bang Refined by Fire. Reasons To Believe, Pasadena, CA.
Schlovskii, I.S. and C. Sagan. 1966. Intelligent life in the universe.
Holden-Day, San Francisco, CA, pp. 343-350.
Kuhn, W.R., J.C.G. Walker, and H.G. Marshall. 1989. The effect on the
Earth's surface temperature from variations in rotation rate,
continent formation, solar luminosity, and carbon dioxide. Journal of
Geophysical Research 94: 11, 136.
Abell, G. 1964. Exploration of the Universe. Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, New York, pp. 244-247.
Brandt, J.C. and P.W. Hodge. 1964. Solar System Astrophysics.
McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 244-247.
Hart, M.H. 1979. Habitable zones about main sequence stars. Icarus 37: 351-357.
Jenkins, G.S., H.G. Marshall, and W.R. Kuhn. 1993. Precambrian
climate: the effects of land area and Earth's rotation rate. Journal
of Geophysical Research, Series D 98: 8785-8791.
Zahnle, K.J. and J.C.G. Walker. 1987. A constant daylength during the
precambrian era? Precambrian Research 37: 95-105.
Monastersky, R. 1993. Speedy spin kept early Earth from freezing.
Science News 143: 373.
Campbell, I.H. and S.R. Taylor. 1983. No water, no granite - no
oceans, no continents. Geophysical Research Letters. 10: 1061-1064.
Rudnick, R. 1995. Making continental crust. Nature 378:571-578.
Ward. W.R. 1982. Comments on the long-term stability of the Earth's
obliquity. Icarus 50: 444-448.
Murray, C.D. 1993. Seasoned travelers. Nature 361: 586-587.
Laskar, J. and P. Robutel. 1993. The chaotic obliquity of the planets.
Nature 361: 608-612.
Laskar, J., F. Joutel, and P. Robutel. 1993. Stabilization of the
Earth's obliquity by the Moon. Nature 361: 615-617.
The editors. July 1993. Our friend Jove. Discover, p. 15.
George Wetherill, "How Special Is Jupiter?" Nature 373 (1995), p. 470.
B. Zuckerman, T. Forveille, and J. H. Kastner, "Inhibition of
Giant-Planet Formation by Rapid Gas Depletion Around Young Stars,"
Nature373 (1995), p. 494-496.
Ray Jayawardhana, "No Alien Jupiters," Science 265 (1994), P. 1527.
Laskar, J. 1994. Large-scale chaos in the Solar System. Astronomy and
Astrophysics 287: 112.
Rasio, F.A. and E.B.Ford. 1996. Dynamical instabilities and the
formation of extrasolar planetary systems. Science 274: 954-956.
Elliott H. Lieb, Michael Loss, and Jan Philip Solovej, "Stability of
Matter in Magnetic Fields," Physical Review Letters, 75 (1995), pp.
985-989.
Rob Rye, Phillip H. Kuo, and Heinrich D. Holland, "Atmospheric Carbon
Dioxide Concentrations Before 2.2 Billion Years Ago," Nature 378
(1995), pp. 603-605.
Robert A. Muller and Gordon J. MacDonald, "Glacial Cycles and orbital
inclination," Nature, 377 (1995), pp. 107-108.
T. R. Gabella and T. Oka, "Detection of H3+ in interstellar Space,"
Nature, 384 (1996), pp. 334-335.
Peter D. Moore, "Fire Damage Soils Our Forest," Nature 384 (1996), pp. 312-313.
Christine Mlot, "Tallying Nitrogen's Increasing Impact," Science News,
151 (1997), p. 100.
Paul G. , "Evolution of the Nitrogen Cycle and its Influence on the
Biological Sequestration of C02 in the Ocean," Nature, 387 (1997), pp.
272-274.
Peter Olson, "Probing Earth's Dynamo," Nature, 389 (1997), p. 337.
Weiji Kuang and Jeremy Bloxham, "An Earth-Like Numerical Dynamo
Model," Nature, 389 (1997), pp. 371-374.
Xiaodong Song and Paul G. Richards, "Seismological Evidence for
Differential Rotation of the Earth's Inner Core," Nature, 382 (1997),
pp. 221-224.
Wei-jia Su, Adam M. Dziewonski, and Raymond Jeanloz, "Planet Within a
Planet: Rotation of the Inner Core of the Earth," Science, 274 (1996),
pp. 1883-1887











Reply



Forward





















Arnie Schwartzenegger

8/27/10








---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Arnie Schwartzenegger <ilbebauc...






















Arnie Schwartzenegger



11/27/11














to me










Life Enabling Constants of our Cosmos so Earth can exist , so we can have a home ----










The Cosmological Constant is to within 120 decimal places and the
Expansion Rate of the Universe according to Prof. Stephen Hawkins is
1/1,000,000 th otherwise we arent here. Considering these two , plus
the following that has been scientifically verified, it is completely
absurd to think this Universe/Solar System/Earth wasnt pre-planned ,
incredibly well designed , and Created by a Mind at work ....and one
is so powerful that it boggles the Mind. Your ultimate purpose to
living is to get to know this obvious personal Creator , and the ball
is in your court ; the wise among us make the effort putting aside
pride :

The table below lists the parameters required for a planet to be able
to sustain life. Individually, the probabilities of occurrence of each
parameter are not particularly impressive. The fact that all of these
parameters are found on the Earth is extremely impressive, indicating
an extreme deviation from random chance. The probability values below
are ones obtained from that observed in the universe as a whole.

Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support

galaxy size (9) (p = 0.1)
if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun's orbit and
ignite deadly galactic eruptions
if too small: infusion of gas would be insufficient to sustain star
formation long enough for life to form
galaxy type (7) (p = 0.1)
if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy
elements formed for life chemistry
if too irregular: radiation exposure would be too severe (at times)
and life-essential heavy elements would not form
galaxy location (9) (p = 0.1)
if too close to dense galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally
unstable, hence unsuitable for life
if too close to large galaxy(ies): same result
supernovae eruptions (8) (p = 0.01)
if too close: radiation would exterminate life
if too far: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to form
if too infrequent: same result
if too frequent: radiation would exterminate life
if too soon: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to form
if too late: radiation would exterminate life
white dwarf binaries (8) (p = 0.01)
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: orbits of life-supportable planets would be disrupted;
life would be exterminated
if too soon: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption (9)
if farther: insufficient heavy elements would be attracted for life chemistry
if closer: nebula would be blown apart
timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption (9)
if earlier: nebula would be blown apart
if later: nebula would not attract enough heavy elements for life chemistry
parent star distance from center of galaxy (9) (p = 0.2)
if greater: insufficient heavy elements would be available for rocky
planet formation
if lesser: radiation would be too intense for life; stellar density
would disturb planetary orbits, making life impossible
parent star distance from closest spiral arm (9) (p = 0.1)
if too small: radiation from other stars would be too intense and the
stellar density would disturb orbits of life-supportable planets
if too great: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient for
formation of life-supportable planets
z-axis range of star's orbit (9) (p = 0.1)
if too wide: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be
too great
number of stars in the planetary system (10) (p = 0.2)
if more than one: tidal interactions would make the orbits of
life-supportable planets too unstable for life
if fewer than one: no heat source would be available for life chemistry
parent star birth date (9) (p = 0.2)
if more recent: star burning would still be unstable; stellar system
would contain too many heavy elements for life chemistry
if less recent: stellar system would contain insufficient heavy
elements for life chemistry
parent star age (9) (p = 0.4)
if older: star's luminosity would be too erratic for life support
if younger: same result
parent star mass (10) (p = 0.001)
if greater: star's luminosity would be too erratic and star would burn
up too quickly to support life
if lesser: life support zone would be too narrow; rotation period of
life-supportable planet would be too long; UV radiation would be
insufficient for photosynthesis
parent star metallicity (9) (p = 0.05)
if too little: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist
if too great: radioactivity would be too intense for life; heavy
element concentrations would be poisonous to life
parent star color (9) (p = 0.4)
if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient to sustain life
if bluer: same result
H3+ production (23) (p = 0.1)
if too little: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life
chemistry would never form
if too great: planets would form at the wrong time and place for life
parent star luminosity (11) (p = 0.0001)
if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop
if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop
surface gravity (governs escape velocity) (12) (p = 0.001)
if stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and
methane for life
if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water for life
distance from parent star (13) (p = 0.001)
if greater: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle
if lesser: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle
inclination of orbit (22) (p = 0.5)
if too great: temperature range on the planet's surface would be too
extreme for life
orbital eccentricity (9) (p = 0.3)
if too great: seasonal temperature range would be too extreme for life
axial tilt (9) (p = 0.3)
if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great to
sustain diverse life-forms
if lesser: same result
rate of change of axial tilt (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: climatic and temperature changes would be too extreme for life
rotation period (11) (p = 0.1)
if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great for life
if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great for life
rate of change in rotation period (14) (p = 0.05)
if more rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be
too extreme for sustained life
if less rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be
too slow for the development of advanced life
planet's age (9) (p = 0.1)
if too young: planet would rotate too rapidly for life
if too old: planet would rotate too slowly for life
magnetic field (20) (p = 0.01)
if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe
if weaker: planetary surface and ozone layer would be inadequately
protected from hard solar and stellar radiation
thickness of crust (15) (p = 0.01)
if greater: crust would rob atmosphere of oxygen needed for life
if lesser: volcanic and tectonic activity would be destructive to life
albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)
(9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: runaway glaciation would develop
if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
asteroid and comet collision rates (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: ecosystem balances would be destroyed
if less: crust would contain too little of certain life-essential elements
mass of body colliding with primordial earth (9) (0 = 0.002)
if greater: Earth's orbit and form would be too greatly disturbed for life
if lesser: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would
be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining role
timing of above collision (9) (p = 0.05)
if earlier: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would
be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining role
if later: Earth's atmosphere would be too thin for life; sun would be
too luminous for subsequent life
oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere (25) (p = 0.1)
if greater: advanced life functions would proceed too rapidly
if lesser: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly
carbon dioxide level in atmosphere (21) (p = 0.01)
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis
water vapor quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced land life
atmospheric electric discharge rate (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: fires would be too frequent and widespread for life
if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere
ozone quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: surface temperatures would be too low for life;
insufficient UV radiation for life
if less: surface temperatures would be too high for life; UV radiation
would be too intense for life
oxygen quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily,
destabilizing Earth's ecosystem
if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe
seismic activity (16) (p = 0.1)
if greater: life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged
if less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be
recycled to continents through tectonics; not enough carbon dioxide
would be released from carbonate buildup
volcanic activity (26)
if lower: insufficient amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor would
be returned to the atmosphere; soil mineralization would be
insufficient for life advanced life support
if higher: advanced life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged
rate of decline in tectonic activity (26) (p = 0.1)
if slower: crust conditions would be too unstable for advanced life
if faster: crust nutrients would be inadequate for sustained land life
rate of decline in volcanic activity (9) (p = 0.1)
if slower: crust and surface conditions would be unsuitable for
sustained land life
if faster: crust and surface nutrients would be inadequate for
sustained land life
oceans-to-continents ratio (11) (p = 0.2)
if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited
if smaller: same result
rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio (9) (p = 0.1)
if smaller: land area would be insufficient for advanced life
if greater: change would be too radical for advanced life to survive
distribution of continents (10) (p = 0.3)
if too much in the Southern Hemisphere: sea-salt aerosols would be
insufficient to stabilize surface temperature and water cycle;
increased seasonal differences would limit the available habitats for
advanced land life
frequency and extent of ice ages (9) (p = 0.1)
if lesser: Earth's surface would lack fertile valleys essential for
advanced life; mineral concentrations would be insufficient for
advanced life.
if greater: Earth would experience runaway freezing
soil mineralization (9) (p = 0.1)
if nutrient poorer: diversity and complexity of lifeforms would be limited
if nutrient richer: same result
gravitational interaction with a moon (17) (p = 0.1)
if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational
period would be too severe for life
if lesser: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic
instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the
continents and vice versa would be insufficient for life; magnetic
field would be too weak to protect life from dangerous radiation
Jupiter distance (18) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from frequent
asteroid and comet collisions
if lesser: Jupiter’s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit
Jupiter mass (19) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Jupiter’s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit 9
if lesser: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from asteroid and
comet collisions
drift in (major) planet distances (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be destabilized
if less: asteroid and comet collisions would be too frequent for life
major planet orbital eccentricities (18) (p = 0.05)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone
major planet orbital instabilities (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone
atmospheric pressure (9) (p = 0.1)
if smaller: liquid water would evaporate too easily and condense too
infrequently to support life
if greater: inadequate liquid water evaporation to support life;
insufficient sunlight would reach Earth's surface; insufficient UV
radiation would reach Earth's surface
atmospheric transparency (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: too broad a range of solar radiation wavelengths would
reach Earth's surface for life support
if lesser: too narrow a range of solar radiation wavelengths would
reach Earth's surface for life support
chlorine quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be
too high for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too high for
most life forms
if lesser: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too
low for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too low for most
life forms
iron quantity in oceans and soils (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: iron poisoning would destroy advanced life
if lesser: food to support advanced life would be insufficient
if very small: no life would be possible
tropospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: advanced animals would experience respiratory failure;
crop yields would be inadequate for advanced life; ozone-sensitive
species would be unable to survive
if smaller: biochemical smog would hinder or destroy most life
stratospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: not enough LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface to
produce food and life-essential vitamins
if lesser: too much LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface, causing
skin cancers and reducing plant growth
mesospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases would
disturb relative abundance of life-essential gases in lower atmosphere
if lesser: same result
frequency and extent of forest and grass fires (24) (p = 0.01)
if greater: advanced life would be impossible
if lesser: accumulation of growth inhibitors, combined with
insufficient nitrification, would make soil unsuitable for food
production
quantity of soil sulfur (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: plants would be destroyed by sulfur toxins, soil acidity,
and disturbance of the nitrogen cycle
if lesser: plants would die from An organic compound made of amino
acids arranged in a linear chain, joined together by peptide bonds
between the carboxyl and amino groups of the adjacent amino acid
residues.protein deficiency
biomass to comet-infall ratio (9) (p = 0.01)
if greater: greenhouse gases would decline, triggering runaway freezing
if lesser: greenhouse gases would accumulate, triggering runaway
greenhouse effect
quantity of sulfur in planet's core (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: solid inner core would never form, disrupting magnetic field
if smaller: solid inner core formation would begin too soon, causing
it to grow too rapidly and extensively, disrupting magnetic field
quantity of sea-salt aerosols (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: too much and too rapid cloud formation over the oceans
would disrupt the climate and atmospheric temperature balances
if smaller: insufficient cloud formation; hence, inadequate water
cycle; disrupts atmospheric temperature balances and hence the climate
dependency factors (estimate 100,000,000,000)
longevity requirements (estimate .00001)


Total Probability = 1:10^99 power

[Canuckster1127]

CallmeDave,

It's OK to put up cut and pastes that address issues, but it would be helpful when you do if you would use the Quote function to "box it" and then provide a link or a reference as to where you got it. Check if you need to if there are any copyright issues and if so then just use a link.

Would you please keep that in mind and help us out moving forward by doing that?

thanks,

bart

[CallMeDave]

CallmeDave,

It's OK to put up cut and pastes that address issues, but it would be helpful when you do if you would use the Quote function to "box it" and then provide a link or a reference as to where you got it. Check if you need to if there are any copyright issues and if so then just use a link.

Would you please keep that in mind and help us out moving forward by doing that?

thanks,

bart

Ok. It came from www.reasons.org

[RickD]

Callmedave posted:

Ok. It came from http://www.reasons.org

Dave, reasons.org is a great site. Hugh Ross is my homeboy.

[MrRoboto]

Thanks for the link to another great site. I bookmarked it for later reading.

Anywho, I have debated atheists who parrot this exact same info from Dawkins. I usually end up by saying to them that the biggest difference between us is our view on the origins of life. The atheist claims my belief in the Bible is a belief in a myth. I claim the atheist's belief in "something from nothing" is a belief in magic. To me that is what something from nothing is, magic. Isn't that part of David Copperfield's act? All a person has to do to see the Bible is correct is to honestly examine the evidence.

[CallMeDave]

Callmedave posted:

Ok. It came from http://www.reasons.org

Dave, reasons.org is a great site. Hugh Ross is my homeboy.

Its a good site to get alot of information from , especially apologetic material for Gods existence thru Design and Engineering., and, to learn about the latest scientific discoveries to do with astro-physics and cosmology.

[CallMeDave]

Thanks for the link to another great site. I bookmarked it for later reading.

Anywho, I have debated atheists who parrot this exact same info from Dawkins. I usually end up by saying to them that the biggest difference between us is our view on the origins of life. The atheist claims my belief in the Bible is a belief in a myth. I claim the atheist's belief in "something from nothing" is a belief in magic. To me that is what something from nothing is, magic. Isn't that part of David Copperfield's act? All a person has to do to see the Bible is correct is to honestly examine the evidence.

Actually, not even David Copperfields 'magic' can be considered something coming into existence from nothing ... what he produces already exists and it is only an illusion that it is coming into existence from nothing ('without a cause' usually) . And thats what an atheistic worldview requires of its Adherrants ---- an illusion that Nothing can produce an exquisitely razor-edge precise Cosmos from nothing by nothing containing the highly personal , logic, reason, intellect, freewill, objective morality, and truth ...and all without a shred of purpose . (something that no rational Person can muster up enough faith to really believe , yet enough Will to find it philosophically appealing based on personal comfort) .

[Byblos]

Besides, magic requires a magician.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Besides, magic requires a magician.

[Stu]

Ok, so I made myself sit through the vid until the "something from nothing" topic was actually raised, it occurs at 45:50 if anyone is interested. Anyway, my thoughts up until and including that point.

Interesting stance he takes (Lawrence Krauss). He considers himself an anti-theist; or, "I can't prove there's no God, I just wouldn't want to live in a universe with one." Now without knowing it, he reveals that what drives him is not purely scientific, but ideological in nature. I guess that's fine too.
If memory serves me correct he doesn't state whether it's an objection to God as a concept or a specific "god". Doesn't really matter I guess; either way the anti-theist view strikes me as close-minded, self-indulgent and ultimately limiting in it's outlook.

Despite admitting that the origin of life from inorganic molecules is an "exceedingly improbable event"; he then states that "the laws of physics had to give rise to the first self-replicating organism". Really? Had to.. oh wait, that's right, presupposition runs deep within the new atheist mindset.

You know what I see when I watch them, two clearly intellectual individuals -- problem is they're entirely consumed by their desire, the desire for there not to be a God, and they indulge that desire in the utmost taking great delight in the fact that have apparantly found the answer.
What they (this mainly applies to Dawkins) fail to understand is that evolution is but a minor cog within that greater worldview. Everything underpinning that worldview is absent. Everything.

He delights in the (so-called) proof of evolution; but that very reality, the building blocks are an illusion -- a first cause for matter and energy; the subsequent all-encompassing fine-tuning of the universe, from the power of gravity itself right down to the constants governing the atom; and on to the origins of "life" itself.
It is one gigantic house of cards. Not to mention the more than dubious "proof" that's advanced for evolution itself.


One thing they do get right is that many religious folk don't grasp just what neo-Darwimism is, or what the Darwinists are actually saying. And they're right that it does the creationist cause no good to respond with "my grandfather wasn't a monkey", or "why doesn't a monkey give birth to a human today".
They speak down to the average person by suggesting that we can't comprehend the amount of time involved. But time is no help if the mechanism itself is impotent. You could have a period of 100 billion years and the laws of chaos will remain.

They tout antibiotic resistance as proof of evolution.. as if creationists don't do the same?
Unlike creationists however they fail to admit the limits of the gradualist mechanism -- namely multiple (4 or more), SPECIFIC, simultaneous amino acid sequence alterations. It's why malaria has overcome all antibiotics ever thrown it's way, but not that which requires those multiple complex alterations like sickle-cell disease.

I find it laughable that Dawkins says he wouldn't visit a medical doctor who doesn't believe in evolution!
Of evolutionists I ask this question: "What has evolution ever contributed to science?"

Something I personally find unacceptable is their contention that evolution = science; and if you fail to accept evolution then making use of any modern scientific comforts like antibiotics and the like is hypocritical.
Evolution IS NOT science. Science explained a round earth, science put the geocentric model to bed, science disproved spontaneous generation. The scientifc method was invented by religious followers!
I find that attitude close-minded, elitest and entirely arrogant; I can tolerate a lot but that just might earn you a punch on the shnozzle if I experienced that one face to face


So something from nothing.
Krauss states that: "The laws of quantum mechanics combined with gravity say that eventually particles will be created and if you wait long enough empty space will always produce a universe full of matter."

Yowser, that brilliant! Magic.
To borrow from William Lane Craig -- while reading the Evidence for God boards, no one is worried that a horse will suddenly pop into being uncaused in your bedroom and is defiling the carpet at this very moment. It's not rational.
A random horse from nowhere defiling your carpet

Another one from Craig, brilliant
The Gettysburg Address of Atheism

Of course the obvious response is that -- that's not nothing -- which it's not. Gravity itself is fine-tuned.
His solution? A plea.

He argues that empty space can create something -- but it's not nothing.
In the end what I see is a man who is desperately seeking an answer (that he likes), almost pleading that we bend logic, just this once, just a little, to accomodate a reality that excludes the supernatural.

[RickD]

Callmedave posted:

Ok. It came from http://www.reasons.org

Dave, reasons.org is a great site. Hugh Ross is my homeboy.

Its a good site to get alot of information from , especially apologetic material for Gods existence thru Design and Engineering., and, to learn about the latest scientific discoveries to do with astro-physics and cosmology.

dave, did you know that the owner of this site, Rich Deem, was a volunteer at Reasons.org, before he started this site? It's in the first paragraph here:http://godandscience.org/about.html#info

[Stu]

dave, did you know that the owner of this site, Rich Deem, was a volunteer at Reasons.org, before he started this site? It's in the first paragraph here:http://godandscience.org/about.html#info

For quite a while I thought you were Rich Deem RickD is only one letter away from it after all

[Danieltwotwenty]

dave, did you know that the owner of this site, Rich Deem, was a volunteer at Reasons.org, before he started this site? It's in the first paragraph here:http://godandscience.org/about.html#info

For quite a while I thought you were Rich Deem RickD is only one letter away from it after all

He has been masquerading as Rich for awhile now, oust the imposter!!!!!!!!!!