Just ran across this interesting article.
I don’t put too much stock into computer simulations of things that are still poorly understood. Indeed, there are plenty of open questions about whether even the basic mechanics of planet formation are understood.
But this caught my eye:
For planets to be habitable, they must orbit stars within the ‘habitable zone’ where it is not too hot or too cold
Yes, we know that, but this next part is less often discussed:
In addition, recent studies on habitability of planets suggest that the water-land ratio must be similar to the Earth. That is, the water mass fraction should not be far from that of the Earth’s (~0.01wt%): planets with too much water (> 1 wt%)-“ocean planets”-lead to an unstable climate and lack of nutrient supply; and water-poor planets like Venus -“dune planets”-become too arid for inhabiting.
Fine tuning deniers, please note. BTW, we still don’t know where that exact amount of water came from.
Cheers
Of related interest:
also of note:
It is simply not possible to overestimate the importance of water to life.
“It is simply not possible to overestimate the importance of water to life.” – and our planet to be just the way that it is.
Psalm 8 (ESV) This poem/song is still an incredible work after centuries of working out cosmology.
ba77, thanks for the great quotes.
We sure got lucky . . . all those particles bumping into each other for billions of years . . . amazing what it produced! 🙂
Yes Eric Anderson, lucky, lucky, us! 🙂
But perhaps I can be forgiven for thinking my existence is attributable to more than just extreme luck?
As Eric Metaxas put the situation in regards to the fine-tuning of so many different parameters in his best selling book ‘Miracles’:
Of related interest to the Red Sea miracle:
There was/is a controversy over the Carbon dating of the destruction of Jericho. Dr. Wood responds to that controversy here:
Here is a gem from a Bible skeptic who thought it unfair for a certain archeologist to use the Bible as a guide in her archeological discovery of King David’s palace since, according to him, “she would certainly find that building”,,,::
With such twisted reasoning as that, as to what is fair and unfair in Biblical archeology, I’m sure that Bible skeptic must also be a neo-Darwinist.