I am not debating this.
Funny, because that is exactly the substance of my argument. Perhaps this will help our readers:
1. There are a wide variety of improbable factors that must be met for any given planet to support life.
2. There are, in comparison to (1), relatively few available planets.
3. Thus, it is unlikely that any given planet should support life.
I provided research to document both 1 and 2. You countered by saying "The numbers aren't precise." I countered by saying the precision isn't what's important, although you certainly didn't provide any references for your claim! What is important, I argue, is that the factors themselves are generally improbable, and the margin of error is plenty wide enough to support the conclusion. You responded that "improbability doesn't imply design," which, of course, is nowhere at all mentioned in my argument.
Now, do you claim that the factors are NOT generally improbable, and, if so, what research do you have to support this? And what research do you have to argue that the numbers I presented are factually incorrect?
I thought the original question was
"Howcome God made things like volcanos, earthquakes etc?
That was one of the questions, which was answered. There were two questions in the OP, the second relating to fine tuning. This question was clarified a few posts down as quoted.
Also somebody brought up a point to me which is that out of the whole universe it isn't that hard to have at least one planet perfect for life, out of the many there are.. does this ruin the fine-tuning argument?"
This is the substance of the current discussion, to which I provided research indicating that it is not likely that there would be any life sustaining objects in our universe.
Again the figures we have now make it improbable, but nothing proves that the universe was fine tuned.
This is a matter of interpretation, which is based on your assumption that improbability does not imply design. You can assert that all you like, but it doesn't change anything. The best you can say is that this does absolutely nothing to help or hurt the fine-tuning argument because, in your mind, there is no such thing, as fine-tuning is built on the idea of probability. Since you reject the argument, you have no frame of reference for which to comment on the discussion.
If, though, you accept the FT argument on its terms and suppositions, then it is obvious that the numbers do not, in fact, damage the argument but actually, assuming the truthfulness of its philosophical basis', support it.
The probability for a planet forming perfect for life is full of unknown variables.
Yes, and it is full of known variables, as referenced. Incredulity doesn't work, BGood. You are arguing against the mainstream.
What formula did you use? What are the variables? Why are those variables used. And what are the values these variables can have?
I didn't use a formula. I quoted Ross and his research. I have already said that if you have a problem with it, take it to him and his research. For my part, I have referenced a qualified authority on the matter, which is exactly what is required for honest discussion.
Now you can tell me with confidence that you can reach an actual figure?
I can tell you with confidence that these men, who are far more trained in the field than I am, have reached what they consider to be ballpark figures that roughly reflect reality.
See, this is how this works: if you make an assertion, you provide evidence to back it up. I made an assertion, I backed it up. If you are going to assert my references are incorrect, then you have to deal with them, not me. It is enough for me that the majority of these are written and reviewed by men with Ph.D's in this field.