Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 2:38 AM
20 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (3 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Life and Fine-tuning of the universe.
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3610
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 16 of 31 (145409)
09-28-2004 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by General Nazort
09-28-2004 1:45 PM


GN writes:

Good job, Lam, at completely making up this number.


Hello!?! I think that was the point, unless it wasn't obvious enough for you.


For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

Why? Bush is a right wing nutcase.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by General Nazort, posted 09-28-2004 1:45 PM General Nazort has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 17 of 31 (145414)
09-28-2004 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by General Nazort
09-28-2004 1:59 PM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by General Nazort, posted 09-28-2004 1:59 PM General Nazort has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by General Nazort, posted 09-29-2004 11:20 PM jar has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2841
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 18 of 31 (145516)
09-28-2004 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
06-20-2004 4:01 AM


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!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 06-20-2004 4:01 AM sidelined has not yet responded

  
General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 31 (145857)
09-29-2004 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Rei
09-28-2004 2:22 PM


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?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Rei, posted 09-28-2004 2:22 PM Rei has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 09-29-2004 11:24 PM General Nazort has responded
 Message 26 by Rei, posted 10-01-2004 7:48 PM General Nazort has not yet responded

  
General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 31 (145859)
09-29-2004 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
09-28-2004 4:40 PM


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?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 09-28-2004 4:40 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by NosyNed, posted 09-30-2004 2:23 AM General Nazort has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 21 of 31 (145861)
09-29-2004 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by General Nazort
09-29-2004 11:14 PM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by General Nazort, posted 09-29-2004 11:14 PM General Nazort has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by General Nazort, posted 10-01-2004 5:32 PM jar has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 22 of 31 (145887)
09-30-2004 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by General Nazort
09-29-2004 11:20 PM


Radiation?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by General Nazort, posted 09-29-2004 11:20 PM General Nazort has not yet responded

  
General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 31 (146574)
10-01-2004 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
09-29-2004 11:24 PM


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?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 09-29-2004 11:24 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 10-01-2004 7:00 PM General Nazort has responded
 Message 27 by Loudmouth, posted 10-01-2004 7:51 PM General Nazort has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 24 of 31 (146614)
10-01-2004 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by General Nazort
10-01-2004 5:32 PM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by General Nazort, posted 10-01-2004 5:32 PM General Nazort has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by General Nazort, posted 10-03-2004 2:47 PM jar has responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 31 (146626)
10-01-2004 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by contracycle
06-21-2004 12:21 PM


quote:
But I have read arguments to the effect that if some very low level values were not the values they are (planck length?) then the universe as a space that could support matter point blank would not exist.

Isn't this similar to natural selection? Couldn't we look at an incorrect Planck length as a lethal mutation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by contracycle, posted 06-21-2004 12:21 PM contracycle has not yet responded

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 5186 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 26 of 31 (146628)
10-01-2004 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by General Nazort
09-29-2004 11:14 PM


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:
if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy element build-up for life chemistry
if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe and heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available

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."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by General Nazort, posted 09-29-2004 11:14 PM General Nazort has not yet responded

    
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 31 (146629)
10-01-2004 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by General Nazort
10-01-2004 5:32 PM


quote:
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?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by General Nazort, posted 10-01-2004 5:32 PM General Nazort has not yet responded

  
General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 31 (147010)
10-03-2004 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by jar
10-01-2004 7:00 PM


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?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 10-01-2004 7:00 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 10-03-2004 3:44 PM General Nazort has not yet responded
 Message 30 by sidelined, posted 10-03-2004 3:54 PM General Nazort has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Loudmouth, posted 10-03-2004 4:43 PM General Nazort has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 29 of 31 (147022)
10-03-2004 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by General Nazort
10-03-2004 2:47 PM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by General Nazort, posted 10-03-2004 2:47 PM General Nazort has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 31 (147025)
10-03-2004 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by General Nazort
10-03-2004 2:47 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by General Nazort, posted 10-03-2004 2:47 PM General Nazort has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019