|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Life and Fine-tuning of the universe. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
GN writes:
Hello!?! I think that was the point, unless it wasn't obvious enough for you. Good job, Lam, at completely making up this number. For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November! Why? Bush is a right wing nutcase.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
One problem with Hugh Ross and his assumptions is that he starts off with an incorrect question. He begins by asking,
What are the chances of finding another Earth-like planet capable of sustaining life? which is simply a nonsense question for several reasons. First, what is an earth-like planet? Is it the earth as it was 4+ billion years ago? Is the earth before the moon? Is it the earth today? Second, we are defining life based on a sample size of exactly one. And even with that limitation, we can't even define what exactly is a living organism. Is it you and me? How about the early proto-bacteria? How about viruses? What about extremophiles? As is so often the case, he is approaching the issue from a human-centric point of view. While that is common, and I must admit that personally, I too prefer a human-centric world, it has nothing to do with the question of life. There is nothing that I can see that seems to indicate that either our solar system or the universe in general have been fine-tuned. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hi Sidelined,
What I find amazing is the fact that on every level from macro to micro from the laws physics and chemistry emerges sentient beings manifested from energy. How cool is that!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General Nazort Inactive Member |
He explains the reasoning for why galaxies, dark matter, etc must have their specific properties here: www.reasons.org/.../solar_system_design...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - AM} While I somewhat agree that the probabilities seem a little made up, this list still shows that there are over 150 factors that must be in a fairly narrow range in order for life to exist. This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-30-2004 02:17 AM If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General Nazort Inactive Member |
we can't even define what exactly is a living organism. Is it you and me? How about the early proto-bacteria? How about viruses? What about extremophiles? Hugh Ross addresses this in the beginning section of the page I posted above. While simpler life like bacteria can exist in harsher conditions, it is more easily damaged by radiation. Ross identifies 6 zones in which life can exist:
1. unicellular, low metabolism life that persists for only a brief time period 2. unicellular, low metabolism life that persists for a long time period 3. unicellular, high metabolism life that persists for a brief time period 4. unicellular, high metabolism life that persists for a long time period 5. advanced life that survives for just a brief time period 6. advanced life that survives for a long time period The list he gives is (supposedly) what is needed for life of any kind to exist. If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
As I pointed out a couple posts above, there are several major flaws with such an assertion. First, what we know about life is based on a sample of one. Only when we have been able to examine several (hopefully many life forms) will we have any idea what is required.
Until then we really have no idea of what the requirements for life are. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
While simpler life like bacteria can exist in harsher conditions, it is more easily damaged by radiation.
Try this:http://www.microbe.org/microbes/Deinococcus.asp It is a very radiation resistant bacteria. Your assertion above is very wrong. It can survive doses about 1,000 times more than you can.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General Nazort Inactive Member |
As I pointed out a couple posts above, there are several major flaws with such an assertion. First, what we know about life is based on a sample of one. Only when we have been able to examine several (hopefully many life forms) will we have any idea what is required. What exactly do you mean by a sample of one? Do you mean all the different kind life on this planet counts as one? Or do you mean that all the life on this planet has only one similar chemical structure? If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Both. All of the different life on this planet is pretty much the same. There are only insignificant differences between the simplest virus and us. We are all based on one chemistry, one set of rules, one environment, one genetic structure.
We have a sample of one. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Isn't this similar to natural selection? Couldn't we look at an incorrect Planck length as a lethal mutation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7042 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
But I did rebuttals to the first several of these. Do you care to defend him, and answer my rebuttals? Or was the first several not enough - do you want me to answer *all* 150?
Besides, most of his explanations are just plain bad science. For example:
quote: Both of these are completely false. There are plenty of heavy elements in irregularly shaped galaxies, and highly elliptical galaxies have plenty of star formation. This guy is just making stuff up. Please, if you want an argument based on probability like this, get someone who knows what they're talking about more. "Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: This is just pure speculation, but what if we found life on Europa, one of the moons of Jupiter? It has been theorized that large quantities of liquid water exist on Europa, so it is possible that life is present. This would mean that Ross was wrong in looking for an Earth like planet. He would also have to add in the probability of a satelite in a Jovian system that was heated by internal friction caused by tidal stresses. Simply, why did he decide to stick with just Earth like planets? Secondly, what if life on Europa is not based on DNA? Then any calculations on life forming have to be readjusted to account for different types of genetic systems. Ross is using a limited data set (ie Earth) to extrapolate out into the unknown. It is foolhardy to say the least.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General Nazort Inactive Member |
As I pointed out a couple posts above, there are several major flaws with such an assertion. First, what we know about life is based on a sample of one. Only when we have been able to examine several (hopefully many life forms) will we have any idea what is required. Until then we really have no idea of what the requirements for life are. OK, I agree with you on this. However, we can know what the requirements are for our kind of life. The "fine tuning" of the universe is not primarily concerned with the possibility of different kinds of life, it is concerned with the factors that go into making the kind of life we know on earth possible. If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So the universe is fine tuned for our kind of life?
Would it not be equally reasonable to say that our kind of life evolved in a place that was suited for it? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
General Nazort
The "fine tuning" of the universe is not primarily concerned with the possibility of different kinds of life, it is concerned with the factors that go into making the kind of life we know on earth possible. So the notion is all the universe was necessary in order to produce our life forms on this exceedingly tiny speck of dust in the cosmos?What if other forms of sentience are capable of existing in another set of fine tuning parameters that we cannot exist in? The question is open until such time as we can produce conditions similsr to that other realm without killing ourselves in the process.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024