Earth is unique and just right for humans indicates a divine plan [Archive]

MidGe

11-07-2007, 07:55 AM

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/science/space/07planetweb.html?ref=us)

This is only the start considering the number of sun like stars in our, and in other galaxies! Watch out for life coming at you whichever which way, with no old or new testament known to them! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Astronomers reported Tuesday that there were at least five planets circling a star there known as 55 Cancri, where only four had been known before, making it the most extensive planetary system yet found outside our own. It is also the one that most resembles our solar system, with a giant planet orbiting far out from the star and four smaller ones circling closer in.

Metric

11-07-2007, 08:38 AM

Amazing that it only seems to interest you insofar as it relates to the Christian Bible in one way or another...

MidGe

11-07-2007, 08:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Amazing that it only seems to interest you insofar as it relates to the Christian Bible in one way or another...

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the most prevalent that display obvious errors!

Given that how do you think "Earth is unique and just right for humans indicates a divine plan" relates specifically to the christian bible? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Ajahn

11-07-2007, 08:57 AM

Define 'divine' please, unless you're talking about a metaphor.

InTheDark

11-07-2007, 09:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This is only the start considering the number of sun like stars in our, and in other galaxies! Watch out for life coming at you whichever which way, with no old or new testament known to them!

[/ QUOTE ]

This exhibits the lack of understanding I've come to expect from your posts.

There is, to date, not a single reliable estimate of the chance of abiogenesis on any single site. If this datum is in fact epsilon, as math types understand it, then you may multiply it by any number of potential sites and you still have no chance of abiogenesis.

kerowo

11-07-2007, 09:08 AM

Wait, what? Because there is no reliable estimate of a chance that means the chance has to be zero? That don't make no sense. If it is non-zero, which it probably is, then it does matter how big a number you multiply it by.

soon2bepro

11-07-2007, 09:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Amazing that it only seems to interest you insofar as it relates to the Christian Bible in one way or another...

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

InTheDark

11-07-2007, 09:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Wait, what? Because there is no reliable estimate of a chance that means the chance has to be zero? That don't make no sense. If it is non-zero, which it probably is, then it does matter how big a number you multiply it by.

[/ QUOTE ]

Learn to read and relate. Then return.

madnak

11-07-2007, 09:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If this datum is in fact epsilon

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't. We can describe physical models according to which there's a finite positive chance of biological molecules forming spontaneously. And, by extension, of an entire cell forming spontaneously.

But these findings have little bearing on the debate over creationism - hell, the whole question of "how likely is it" is a red herring.

InTheDark

11-07-2007, 10:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If this datum is in fact epsilon

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't. We can describe physical models according to which there's a finite positive chance of biological molecules forming spontaneously. And, by extension, of an entire cell forming spontaneously.

But these findings have little bearing on the debate over creationism - hell, the whole question of "how likely is it" is a red herring.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least one of us has the good sense to admit uncertainty.

I've made an awful lot of money in my life knowning exactly what I don't know.

madnak

11-07-2007, 10:25 AM

Right. Doubting the laws of physics is sensible, but believing that a discrete physical event has an infinitesimal likelihood is the height of reason. Yawn.

madnak

11-07-2007, 10:26 AM

Damn! I wasted my 5000th post on you.

kerowo

11-07-2007, 11:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wait, what? Because there is no reliable estimate of a chance that means the chance has to be zero? That don't make no sense. If it is non-zero, which it probably is, then it does matter how big a number you multiply it by.

[/ QUOTE ]

Learn to read and relate. Then return.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did read, and it sounded like you are saying there is zero chance for spontaneous creation of life since no one has been able to come up with a realistic estimate of the actual chances. Is that not what you said?

Splendour

11-07-2007, 11:49 AM

I found this part of the article very interesting and ironic at the same time:

"One of the first of these “exoplanets” discovered, in 1996, was at 55 Cancri. Dr. Fischer and her colleagues have been observing that star for 18 years, adding more planets to the list of its retinue as they have made their presence known.The outermost and heaviest planet in the system, which is four times as massive as Jupiter, circles at a distance of 500 million miles, slightly farther than Jupiter in our own system, and takes 14 years to complete an orbit. Because the astronomers have to see a complete cycle before they know a planet is there, its presence was confirmed only in 2002. "

It takes a human being 18 years to find all the planets and one planet takes 14 years to make 1 orbit, yet people think God should reveal his plan in an instant. Quite a little contradiction in human patience and understanding between the way we understand the heavens and the way we understand God. I'm sure no one will follow my reasoning. I can't follow it so why should anyone else. I am just drawing another parallel.

But don't scientists acknowledge that the earth is very unique in so many attributes that manage to sustain life that the odds that we could sustain life if it wasn't a plan are astronomical. I mean water, the right distance from the sun, the right distance from the moon, the right gravity. Don't all of these seem like a miracle or an act of providence that allowed humans and all other life forms to exist?

Siegmund

11-07-2007, 05:19 PM

They are compelling evidence that the earth was here first and then humans evolved (or were created) to be just right for the world in which they lived.

No, I don't think scientists would accept that the odds of the earth being able to sustain life are astronomical. Indeed we might point to the possibility of a select few earth life-forms being able to survive underground on Mars or under the ice on Europa as evidence that environments suitable to SOME form of life not being exceptionally rare at all.

FortunaMaximus

11-07-2007, 05:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They are compelling evidence that the earth was here first and then humans evolved (or were created) to be just right for the world in which they lived.

No, I don't think scientists would accept that the odds of the earth being able to sustain life are astronomical. Indeed we might point to the possibility of a select few earth life-forms being able to survive underground on Mars or under the ice on Europa as evidence that environments suitable to SOME form of life not being exceptionally rare at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the vastness of the Universe as indication that the odds of it arising elsewhere are likely. As logic dictates.

Perhaps the mathematics say it's more likely to be 0 than 1.

There's a difference between life and intelligence though. I think personally, it's too soon in this day and age to come to a definitive conclusion about those questions. That doesn't mean it's not grounds for fruitful speculation, however, but it'll take a lot of searching to get an answer and we've barely begun.

Four or five planets we're decades or centuries from visiting physically and checking for ourselves do not a solution make. At minimum, all it establishes is that theory is becoming practical fact and that our Solar System is not unique.

It's easy to leap to the assumption that life is a correlation of that logical comparsion. It shouldn't be made though.

Borodog

11-07-2007, 05:37 PM

Has Midge ever made a post that did not contain a smiley and an exclamation point! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

InTheDark

11-07-2007, 07:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Damn! I wasted my 5000th post on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention roughly 4500 previous.

evank15

11-07-2007, 07:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But don't scientists acknowledge that the earth is very unique in so many attributes that manage to sustain life that the odds that we could sustain life if it wasn't a plan are astronomical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't be the only one who had a good hearty laugh after reading this one.

Your post is so uninformed it is scary. People who know nothing about astronomy should either make an effort to learn it, or simply stfu. All you are doing at the moment is spreading ignorance. Familiar territory for a Christian though I guess.

Splendour

11-07-2007, 08:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But don't scientists acknowledge that the earth is very unique in so many attributes that manage to sustain life that the odds that we could sustain life if it wasn't a plan are astronomical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't be the only one who had a good hearty laugh after reading this one.

Your post is so uninformed it is scary. People who know nothing about astronomy should either make an effort to learn it, or simply stfu. All you are doing at the moment is spreading ignorance. Familiar territory for a Christian though I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please be sure you read my Is This True? Why or Why Not? post. Maybe you need to think about your interpersonal relationship skills.

I didn't spread any ignorance. I asked a question.

Your post is what displayed ignorance. You displayed absolutely no knowledge in your response whatsoever.

evank15

11-07-2007, 08:34 PM

"I mean water, the right distance from the sun, the right distance from the moon, the right gravity. Don't all of these seem like a miracle or an act of providence that allowed humans and all other life forms to exist? "

That is ignorance.

Ask me a (answerable) astronomy question. I'll answer it.

Unlike you, I am well-versed on the topic.

To answer that "question", well, I did. You're just too focused on ripping on me to realize that I already answered it. The answer is, yes the odds are most likely "astronomical". But when you are talking about the universe, the superlative "astronomical" does not hold nearly the same weight it does in common parlance. Your usage of "astronomical" is what I found funny.

jogsxyz

11-07-2007, 08:43 PM

41 light years away. The universe is estimated at 78 billion light years. We humans don't know very much, do we?

InTheDark

11-07-2007, 10:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
41 light years away. The universe is estimated at 78 billion light years. We humans don't know very much, do we?

[/ QUOTE ]

Help!

The big bang was ~14 BY ago, yes? How do any two particles get more than 28 BLY apart? Is there some addition for the Hubble constant and the expansion of space?

FortunaMaximus

11-07-2007, 10:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
41 light years away. The universe is estimated at 78 billion light years. We humans don't know very much, do we?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps not. But we at least have an insatiable desire to learn. This project should yield more data. (Assuming it ever gets off the ground.)

Terrestrial Planet Finder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_Planet_Finder)

Aside:

[ QUOTE ]
That is ignorance.

Ask me a (answerable) astronomy question. I'll answer it.

Unlike you, I am well-versed on the topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations. You haven't proven her wrong though. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Borodog

11-07-2007, 11:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
41 light years away. The universe is estimated at 78 billion light years. We humans don't know very much, do we?

[/ QUOTE ]

Help!

The big bang was ~14 BY ago, yes? How do any two particles get more than 28 BLY apart? Is there some addition for the Hubble constant and the expansion of space?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation

MaxWeiss

11-08-2007, 09:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But don't scientists acknowledge that the earth is very unique in so many attributes that manage to sustain life that the odds that we could sustain life if it wasn't a plan are astronomical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't be the only one who had a good hearty laugh after reading this one.

Your post is so uninformed it is scary. People who know nothing about astronomy should either make an effort to learn it, or simply stfu. All you are doing at the moment is spreading ignorance. Familiar territory for a Christian though I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please be sure you read my Is This True? Why or Why Not? post. Maybe you need to think about your interpersonal relationship skills.

I didn't spread any ignorance. I asked a question.

Your post is what displayed ignorance. You displayed absolutely no knowledge in your response whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not astronomical since we have only found life on the one that can support it. Given the hundreds of billions of planets circling stars in each of the hundreds of billions of galaxies, it's really not all that astronomical that one should have good conditions, and that if/when it does, life might develop on it.

InTheDark

11-08-2007, 09:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But don't scientists acknowledge that the earth is very unique in so many attributes that manage to sustain life that the odds that we could sustain life if it wasn't a plan are astronomical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't be the only one who had a good hearty laugh after reading this one.

Your post is so uninformed it is scary. People who know nothing about astronomy should either make an effort to learn it, or simply stfu. All you are doing at the moment is spreading ignorance. Familiar territory for a Christian though I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please be sure you read my Is This True? Why or Why Not? post. Maybe you need to think about your interpersonal relationship skills.

I didn't spread any ignorance. I asked a question.

Your post is what displayed ignorance. You displayed absolutely no knowledge in your response whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not astronomical since we have only found life on the one that can support it. Given the hundreds of billions of planets circling stars in each of the hundreds of billions of galaxies, it's really not all that astronomical that one should have good conditions, and that if/when it does, life might develop on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is unfair. We have no evidence upon which we can formulate any estimate save that abiogenesis has occured once. Add to this the fact that many evolutionary biologists believe that abiogenesis only occured once on Earth.

I've heard creationists suggest that undirected abiogenesis is akin to a tornado passing through a junk yard and assemblying a jet airplane. I'm begining to think it's more like a strong breeze spading a random deck of cards. Or life is everywhere.

vhawk01

11-08-2007, 10:47 AM

kerowo

11-08-2007, 10:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is unfair. We have no evidence upon which we can formulate any estimate save that abiogenesis has occured once. Add to this the fact that many evolutionary biologists believe that abiogenesis only occured once on Earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not understand large numbers? If you think the chances of abiogenesis are 0 come out and say it. I'll say it's greater than 0 because it happened once already, and from what we have seen life finds a way. If it isn't 0 then chances are really good that it has happened somewhere else because of the size of the cosmos.

InTheDark

11-09-2007, 09:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is unfair. We have no evidence upon which we can formulate any estimate save that abiogenesis has occured once. Add to this the fact that many evolutionary biologists believe that abiogenesis only occured once on Earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not understand large numbers? If you think the chances of abiogenesis are 0 come out and say it. I'll say it's greater than 0 because it happened once already, and from what we have seen life finds a way. If it isn't 0 then chances are really good that it has happened somewhere else because of the size of the cosmos.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand really small numbers? If the lifetime odds for abiogenesis for any given planet are the same as the odds of a unique shuffle of a deck of cards then, universe wide, we're stunningly lucky and likely alone.

There exists only ~10^81 baryons. Not so many when you divide by 10^67.

StayHungry

11-09-2007, 10:02 AM

[image]http://trouble.philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/foucault.jpg[image/]

jogsxyz

11-09-2007, 10:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
http://trouble.philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/foucault.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

becomes

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d26/jogsxyz/neg3sd.jpg

MaxWeiss

11-09-2007, 10:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is unfair. We have no evidence upon which we can formulate any estimate save that abiogenesis has occured once. Add to this the fact that many evolutionary biologists believe that abiogenesis only occured once on Earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not understand large numbers? If you think the chances of abiogenesis are 0 come out and say it. I'll say it's greater than 0 because it happened once already, and from what we have seen life finds a way. If it isn't 0 then chances are really good that it has happened somewhere else because of the size of the cosmos.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand really small numbers? If the lifetime odds for abiogenesis for any given planet are the same as the odds of a unique shuffle of a deck of cards then, universe wide, we're stunningly lucky and likely alone.

There exists only ~10^81 baryons. Not so many when you divide by 10^67.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, I don't understand the last part--what does the number of baryon particles in the universe have to do with this, and what does the second figure (the number of unique shuffles of a 52 card deck, 52 factorial) have to do with this??

Secondly, while I don't know exactly what abiogensis entails (so I can't comment explicitly on it), I do know that in lab experiments which simulate early earth conditions (an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen), when electricity (read: lightning) was added, much carbon and other organic gas was produced.

I also don't know anything about enzymes or proteins or how they arrange themselves or anything, and I don't know if the whole enzyme/protein arrangement argument (against life happening without god) is even valid in theory. Assuming it is, I would like to ask how often enzymes/proteins arrange themselves in various ways, and how many there were, and if any arrangements might be weighted, or become weighted when formed. This bears significantly on the possibility of that happening.

kerowo

11-09-2007, 11:07 AM

InTheDark

11-09-2007, 06:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is unfair. We have no evidence upon which we can formulate any estimate save that abiogenesis has occured once. Add to this the fact that many evolutionary biologists believe that abiogenesis only occured once on Earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not understand large numbers? If you think the chances of abiogenesis are 0 come out and say it. I'll say it's greater than 0 because it happened once already, and from what we have seen life finds a way. If it isn't 0 then chances are really good that it has happened somewhere else because of the size of the cosmos.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand really small numbers? If the lifetime odds for abiogenesis for any given planet are the same as the odds of a unique shuffle of a deck of cards then, universe wide, we're stunningly lucky and likely alone.

There exists only ~10^81 baryons. Not so many when you divide by 10^67.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I get really tiny numbers, and big numbers win because the really small numbers you are talking about are indistinguishable from zero. So have some guts and say you think the chances of abiogenesis are zero or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever I think, the odds remain the same and as I write this they are unknown.

madnak

11-09-2007, 06:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes I get really tiny numbers, and big numbers win because the really small numbers you are talking about are indistinguishable from zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they aren't. In fact, given an arbitrarily large universe, these really small probabilities end up approaching 1.

kerowo

11-09-2007, 06:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes I get really tiny numbers, and big numbers win because the really small numbers you are talking about are indistinguishable from zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they aren't. In fact, given an arbitrarily large universe, these really small probabilities end up approaching 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, that was the point of the exchange. It seems like InTheDark is trying to set the chance so low as to be zero, I called him on it, and he still won't come out and say that he doesn't believe in abiogenisis. Probably because he doesn't want to commit to how life started here.

madnak

11-09-2007, 06:59 PM

Well, right. He initially said epsilon, which ruins his credibility. Although, if we accept the Many Worlds interpretation life is an inevitability even if the probability is that small! Actually, when talking about probability I'm pretty sure "epsilon" is meaningless. If there's an infinitely greater chance of this than of that, I think that has a 0 probability (even when that is possible).

It's nonsensical for abiogenesis to be impossible.