Fine tuning News

Fine tuning: Size of Earth

Spread the love

Further from that Eric Metaxas:

“If the earth were slightly larger, it of course would have slightly larger gravity, which has interesting implications. It’s not just that a person who weighs 150 pounds would weigh more. It’s that if the earth had slightly more gravity than it now has, methane and ammonia gas, which have molecular weights of sixteen and seventeen, respectfully, would remain close to our surface. Since we cannot breathe methane and ammonia, which are toxic, we would die. More to the point, we would have never come into existence in the first place.

On the other hand, if earth were just a tiny bit smaller and had a bit less gravity, water vapor, which has a molecular weight of 18, would not stay down here close to the planet’s surface but would instead dissipate into the planets atmosphere. Obviously, without water we could not exist.” – Eric Metaxas – Miracles – pages 38-39

Again, hat tip: Philip Cunningham

139 Replies to “Fine tuning: Size of Earth

  1. 1
    Andre says:

    There is no fine tuning that you speak of! It is just unguided processes that did it!

  2. 2
    Mark Frank says:

    This is a classic case of the puddle that is just the right size to fit the hole it is in.

    There are life forms that exist in all the most extreme conditions on earth now and in the past. There is even evidence that some life forms can survive space travel. If gravity was slightly different the earth might not support us but it is quite possible it would have supported some other life form instead.

  3. 3
    Andre says:

    Mark Frank

    Just imagine, unguided evolution finds a way!

  4. 4
    Me_Think says:

    Earth was fine tuned for bacteria with lots of methane and no oxygen. Unfortunately someone gifted photosynthesis and fine tuned it for humans

  5. 5
    Mark Frank says:

    And at some stage in the future we may fine tune it for cockroaches by clever use of nuclear weapons.

  6. 6
    Andre says:

    Mark Frank

    Like I said unguided evolution can build anything even nuclear weapons…… Where have you been!

  7. 7
    Joe says:

    There are life forms that exist in all the most extreme conditions on earth now and in the past.

    So what? Unguided evolution didn’t put them there.

    BTW what about the puddles that don’t exactly fit the hole they are in? My bet is that happens more often than not.

  8. 8
    Joe says:

    MT:

    Earth was fine tuned for bacteria with lots of methane and no oxygen.

    Evidence please.

  9. 9
    Me_Think says:

    Joe @ 8
    GIYF

  10. 10
    Joe says:

    MT @ (- I knew you couldn’t present any evidence to support your tripe

  11. 11
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    ME_think

    Earth was fine tuned for bacteria with lots of methane and no oxygen.

    Mark Frank

    at some stage in the future we may fine tune it for cockroaches by clever use of nuclear weapons.

    I say,

    Would bacteria or cockroaches ever have the ability to study their environment and ponder their good fortune? Would such an environment be amendable to study at all?

    The fine tuning argument is about more than survival of any ole life it’s about the flourishing of the kind of life that has the intelligence and ability to study it’s surroundings and to actually give a rip about how it all came to be

    peace

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    Of note to water vapor:

    The Cold Trap: How It Works – Michael Denton – May 10, 2014
    Excerpt: As water vapor ascends in the atmosphere, it cools and condenses out, forming clouds and rain and snow and falling back to the Earth. This process becomes very intense at the so-called tropopause (17-10 km above sea level) where air temperatures reach -80°C and all remaining water in the atmosphere is frozen out. The air in the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere in the stratosphere (extending up to 50 km above mean sea level) is absolutely dry, containing oxygen, nitrogen, some CO and the other atmospheric gases, but virtually no H2O molecules.,,,
    ,,,above 80-100 km, atoms and molecules are subject to intense ionizing radiation. If water ascended to this level it would be photo-dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen and, the hydrogen being very light, lost into space. Over a relatively short geological period all the water and oceans would be evaporated and the world uninhabitable.,,,
    Oxygen, having a boiling point of -183°C, has no such problems ascending through the tropopause cold trap into the stratosphere. As it does, it becomes subject to more and more intense ionizing radiation. However this leads,, to the formation of ozone (O3). This forms a protective layer in the atmosphere above the tropopause, perfectly placed just above the cold trap and preventing any ionizing radiation in the far UV region from reaching the H2O molecules at the tropopause and in the troposphere below.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....85441.html

  13. 13
    Mark Frank says:

    5mm #11

    The fine tuning argument is about more than survival of any ole life it’s about the flourishing of the kind of life that has the intelligence and ability to study it’s surroundings and to actually give a rip about how it all came to be

    The point is that different environments will lead to different life forms. I don’t think anyone has much idea what are the constraints on environments that permit the development of life that is “has the intelligence and ability to study it’s surroundings and to actually give a rip about how it all came to be” but it doesn’t affect the argument. Even if only the most excruciatingly specific circumstances would lead to intelligent life – different specific circumstances would lead to life or even non-life that was special in other respects. You can only argue it was fine tuning by assuming that something had an objective to create something like us i.e. you have to assume the very thing you are arguing for.

  14. 14
    Joe says:

    The point is that different environments will lead to different life forms.

    The Moon has a different environment. What type of lifeforms will that environment lead to?

  15. 15
    Mark Frank says:

    #14 Joe

    I did not meant to imply that all environments lead to life forms – but the range even on earth is extraordinary.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis – Michael J. Denton – February 25, 2013
    Summary (page 11)
    Many of the properties of the key members of Henderson’s vital ensemble —water, oxygen, CO2, HCO3 —are in several instances fit specifically for warm-blooded, air-breathing organisms such as ourselves. These include the thermal properties of water, its low viscosity, the gaseous nature of oxygen and CO2 at ambient temperatures, the inertness of oxygen at ambient temperatures, and the bicarbonate buffer, with its anomalous pKa value and the elegant means of acid-base regulation it provides for air-breathing organisms. Some of their properties are irrelevant to other classes of organisms or even maladaptive.
    It is very hard to believe there could be a similar suite of fitness for advanced carbon-based life forms. If carbon-based life is all there is, as seems likely, then the design of any active complex terrestrial being would have to closely resemble our own. Indeed the suite of properties of water, oxygen, and CO2 together impose such severe constraints on the design and functioning of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems that their design, even down to the details of capillary and alveolar structure can be inferred from first principles. For complex beings of high metabolic rate, the designs actualized in complex Terran forms are all that can be. There are no alternative physiological designs in the domain of carbon-based life that can achieve the high metabolic activity manifest in man and other higher organisms.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.1

    Privileged Species – Trailer
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAHPTwGZSP4

    Privileged Species – How the cosmos is designed for human life – website
    http://privilegedspecies.com/

    Michael Denton’s Privileged Species Premieres in Seattle to a Packed House – November 14, 2014
    Excerpt: If life exists elsewhere (in the universe), its home would remind us of Earth and the aliens would reminds us of ourselves. The periodic table, so wonderfully concise, is a recipe for us. Oh, and for our way of life too. While focusing on the unique properties of water, carbon, and oxygen, Denton shows that the chemical elements appear beautifully structured to allow the development of technology, from our use of fire to the rise of computers.
    He emphasizes that this “stunning series of coincidences” is not a matter of scientific controversy, and in fact represents the great scientific discovery of the past century. It’s a matter of fact, not interpretation.
    Denton observed that properties of nature uniquely fit for life continue to be discovered regularly and he offered the prediction that in the upcoming century scientists will uncover more and more.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91241.html

  17. 17
    jazzcat says:

    Mark Frank @2

    “This is a classic case of the puddle that is just the right size to fit the hole it is in.”

    That statement is a mischaracterization of the fine-tuning argument. Try the example of a key fitting into a lock. Life is opening the door and the universe and its constants of physics are the lock(s)/key(s). Only a specified lock-key relationship will lead to the opening of the door. Only specific constants of physics will allow life to exist. We could infer the statement, “the key was designed to open the lock.” We could similarly infer, “the universe was designed for life to exist.”

    It is true that you could “adjust” the key slightly and still maintain function with the lock but only ever so slightly. Eventual tweaking will lead the key UNABLE to perform the function with the lock and open the door. Similarly you could “adjust” the constants of physics ever so slightly and possibly still allow for the existence of life, but too much would lead to an inhabitable universe. You could argue that the specification (fine-tuning) is within large parameters (such as a hot dog fitting into a bun). But for the case with the lock-key the specificity is high (very few keys could open the same lock). Determining the constraints and how well tuned to allow life they are is on-going investigation. A prediction of the theory is that as we learn more about the universe we will find more constraints or the constraints will be shown to be highly constrained or more finely tuned. (e.g. tolerance will increase from 10% to 5% to 1%…)

    Your analogy is flawed for another reason. Rain falling into a hole necessarily fills it’s shape. You might say it “leads to the formation of what we see, namely a puddle in a hole.” However, notice during my comment I said, “allows life to exist,” not “leads to life” as you asserted in comment 13. A random viscous liquid may fill the lock (but not lead to the opening of the door). A random solid will most likely NOT fit into the lock (thus not leading to the opening of the door). A lock by itself does NOT lead the formation of the key that would lead to the opening of the door. Similarly the constants of physics in this universe do NOT necessarily lead to life, they merely allow life to exist (if it ever begins).

    Translate that to the OP with the size of the Earth. Here the fine-tuning is for Complex life. I will admit that the size of the Earth can be adjusted more freely and still allow for micro-organisms to exist, but Complex life requiring a breathing apparatus could only exist with finer restraints on the size of Earth leading to the correct amount of gases available.

    Your assertion in comment 13 that “different environments will lead to different life forms” is pure speculation with no evidence. We actually have very good ideas and observations on the constraints on environments that permit the existence of life, the existences of complex life, and the existence of technology that will be used by intelligent life. Astrobiologists use these ideas in their search for life (intelligent or not) outside Earth.

  18. 18
    Me_Think says:

    Joe @ 10
    Don’t be so lazy. GIYF. Hint :Search for ‘Early Earth methane’ or ‘Methane in early earth’ or ‘concentration of methane’
    Search term 1 for you here

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    As to photosynthesis (and light in general), that is a miracle in its own right:

    at the 21:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr Suarez explains why photosynthesis needs a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause to explain its effect:

    Nonlocality of Photosynthesis – Antoine Suarez – video – 2012
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ge#t=1268s

    Quantum Mechanics Explains Efficiency of Photosynthesis – Jan. 9, 2014
    Excerpt: Previous experiments suggest that energy is transferred in a wave-like manner, exploiting quantum phenomena, but crucially, a non-classical explanation could not be conclusively proved as the phenomena identified could equally be described using classical physics.,,,
    Now, a team at UCL have attempted to identify features in these biological systems which can only be predicted by quantum physics, and for which no classical analogues exist.
    ,,,said Alexandra Olaya-Castro (UCL Physics & Astronomy), supervisor and co-author of the research. “We found that the properties of some of the chromophore vibrations that assist energy transfer during photosynthesis can never be described with classical laws, and moreover, this non-classical behaviour enhances the efficiency of the energy transfer.”,,,
    Other biomolecular processes such as the transfer of electrons within macromolecules (like in reaction centres in photosynthetic systems), the structural change of a chromophore upon absorption of photons (like in vision processes) or the recognition of a molecule by another (as in olfaction processes), are influenced by specific vibrational motions. The results of this research therefore suggest that a closer examination of the vibrational dynamics involved in these processes could provide other biological prototypes exploiting truly non-classical phenomena,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....092008.htm

    Cells Know Their Physics – October 2010
    Excerpt: the Complex I macromolecular complex. This machine employs a railroad-like piston and coupling-rod mechanism,, to create the proton gradient that drives ATP synthesis.“It is remarkable that the most fundamental energy-generating machinery in cells is based on the wave properties of electrons, which allow for an efficient transport of energy-carrying particles along the chain of redox cofactors toward molecular oxygen via quantum tunneling as demonstrated by this study.”
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20101027a

    As well, the ATP synthase molecular machine, which is an integral part of the photosynthetic process, operates at 100% thermodynamic efficiency:

    Your Motor/Generators Are 100% Efficient – October 2011
    Excerpt: ATP synthase astounds again. The molecular machine that generates almost all the ATP (molecular “energy pellets”) for all life was examined by Japanese scientists for its thermodynamic efficiency. By applying and measuring load on the top part that synthesizes ATP, they were able to determine that one cannot do better at getting work out of a motor,,, The article was edited by noted Harvard expert on the bacterial flagellum, Howard Berg.
    http://crev.info/content/11101.....generators

    Visible light is also incredibly fine-tuned for life to exist. Though visible light is only a tiny fraction of the total electromagnetic spectrum coming from the sun, it happens to be the “most permitted” portion of the sun’s spectrum allowed to filter through the our atmosphere. All the other bands of electromagnetic radiation, directly surrounding visible light, happen to be harmful to organic molecules, and are almost completely absorbed by the atmosphere. The tiny amount of harmful UV radiation, which is not visible light, allowed to filter through the atmosphere is needed to keep various populations of single cell bacteria from over-populating the world (Ross; reasons.org). The size of light’s wavelengths and the constraints on the size allowable for the protein molecules of organic life, also seem to be tailor-made for each other. This “tailor-made fit” allows photosynthesis, the miracle of sight, and many other things that are necessary for human life. These specific frequencies of light (that enable plants to manufacture food and astronomers to observe the cosmos) represent less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth (10^-24) of the universe’s entire range of electromagnetic emissions. Like water, visible light also appears to be of optimal biological utility (Denton; Nature’s Destiny).

    Extreme Fine Tuning of Light for Life and Scientific Discovery – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/7715887

    Fine Tuning Of Universal Constants, Particularly Light – Walter Bradley – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491552

    Fine Tuning Of Light to the Atmosphere, to Biological Life, and to Water – graphs
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc.....aGh4MmdnOQ

    Michael Denton: Remarkable Coincidences in Photosynthesis – podcast
    http://www.idthefuture.com/201....._coin.html

  20. 20
    Zachriel says:

    Mark Frank: This is a classic case of the puddle that is just the right size to fit the hole it is in.

    Actually, it’s the hole that is just the right size for the puddle!

  21. 21
    Me_Think says:

    fifthmonarchyman @ 11

    Would bacteria or cockroaches ever have the ability to study their environment and ponder their good fortune? Would such an environment be amendable to study at all?

    Only cockroaches can survive Nuclear explosion, at-least up to 10,000 rads. Bacteria too are remarkably flexible and are known to survive in extreme environment. They are truly remarkable creatures. They will be the inheritors of Earth if we are wiped out.

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related note to Denton’s ‘Privileged Species’, we now know that the earth has a surprising special position in the universe,,,

    Why is the solar system cosmically aligned? BY Dragan Huterer – 2007
    The solar system seems to line up with the largest cosmic features. Is this mere coincidence or a signpost to deeper insights?
    Caption under figure on page 43:
    ODD ALIGNMENTS hide within the multipoles of the cosmic microwave background. In this combination of the quadrupole and octopole, a plane bisects the sphere between the largest warm and cool lobes. The ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit projected onto the celestial sphere — is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes.
    http://www-personal.umich.edu/.....uterer.pdf

    Of note: The preceding article was written before the Planck data (with WMPA & COBE data), but the observations were actually verified by Planck.

    A Large Scale Pattern from Optical Quasar Polarization Vectors – 2013
    &
    Testing the Dipole Modulation Model in CMBR – 2013

    Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? – Ashok K. Singal – May 17, 2013
    Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies\cite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources\cite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134

    In fact, a movie has been recently been released, in limited distribution thus far, announcing, as far as I can tell from not personally seeing the movie yet, that the Copernican principle is being overturned by recent discoveries in astronomy:

    Does the Universe Revolve Around Earth? – The Principle – video interview
    Excerpt: three probes of this radiation all showed the same proof that the universe and its galaxies appear to be arrayed around Earth and the Milky Way.
    “All of the radiation which comes from everywhere in the universe – there’s no place we don’t see it – it’s all coming toward us and aligned with us,” Sungenis said.,,,
    there is provable design in the universe and Earth’s at the center of it – like what scientists found with the 2005 Sloan Digital Sky Survey of all the visible cosmos.
    “As far out as we could see in the universe the galaxies were aligned in concentric spheres around – guess what – Earth, or our galaxy,”
    http://m.cbn.com/cbnnews/healt.....nd-Earth-/

    Moreover, there are many independent characteristics required to be fulfilled for any planet to host advanced carbon-based life. Two popular books have been written, ‘The Privileged Planet’ by Guillermo Gonzalez and ‘Rare Earth’ by Donald Brownlee, indicating the earth is extremely unique in its ability to host advanced life in this universe. The ‘Rare Earth’ hypothesis has been now extended by Dr. Hugh Ross and his team:

    Rare Earth – Michael Strauss PhD. – video
    https://vimeo.com/91775975

    Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross’s book, ‘Why the Universe Is the Way It Is’;
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. equals 10^-1333
    dependency factors estimate approx. equals 10^324
    longevity requirements estimate approx. equals 10^45
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. equals 10^-1054
    Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. equals 10^22

    Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.
    http://www.reasons.org/files/c....._part3.pdf
    Hugh Ross – Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere (10^-1054) – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    In the following video, Dr. Hugh Ross reveals that the conditions necessary for advanced life to exist in the universe occur during a narrow window during the universe’s history,,,

    Hugh Ross – The Anthropic Principle and The Anthropic Inequality – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8494065/

    Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity By Hugh Ross
    Excerpt: Brandon Carter, the British mathematician who coined the term “anthropic principle” (1974), noted the strange inequity of a universe that spends about 15 billion years “preparing” for the existence of a creature that has the potential to survive no more than 10 million years (optimistically).,, Carter and (later) astrophysicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler demonstrated that the inequality exists for virtually any conceivable intelligent species under any conceivable life-support conditions. Roughly 15 billion years represents a minimum preparation time for advanced life: 11 billion toward formation of a stable planetary system, one with the right chemical and physical conditions for primitive life, and four billion more years toward preparation of a planet within that system, one richly layered with the biodeposits necessary for civilized intelligent life. Even this long time and convergence of “just right” conditions reflect miraculous efficiency.
    Moreover the physical and biological conditions necessary to support an intelligent civilized species do not last indefinitely. They are subject to continuous change: the Sun continues to brighten, Earth’s rotation period lengthens, Earth’s plate tectonic activity declines, and Earth’s atmospheric composition varies. In just 10 million years or less, Earth will lose its ability to sustain human life. In fact, this estimate of the human habitability time window may be grossly optimistic. In all likelihood, a nearby supernova eruption, a climatic perturbation, a social or environmental upheaval, or the genetic accumulation of negative mutations will doom the species to extinction sometime sooner than twenty thousand years from now.
    http://christiangodblog.blogsp.....chive.html

    At the 38:10 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Huterer speaks of the ‘why right now? coincidence problem’ for dark matter and visible matter:

    Dragan Huterer – ‘coincidence problem’ – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qTJc1Y7duM#t=2290

    The Privileged Planet by Gonzalez, which also holds that any rare life supporting planet in the universe will also be ‘privileged’ for observation of the universe, has now been made into a excellent video,,,

    The Privileged Planet – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ohuG3Vj_48&list=PLbzQ4aXdqWD-9kjFsSm-cxNlzgrkJuko7

    “The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”
    – Guillermo Gonzalez – Astronomer

    The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole.
    – Jay Richards

    The Privileged Planet hypothesis has now been extended by Robin Collins PhD.,,,

    The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability – Robin Collins – March 22, 2014
    Excerpt: The most dramatic confirmation of the discoverability/livability optimality thesis (DLO) is the dependence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) on the baryon to photon ratio.,,,
    …the intensity of CMB depends on the photon to baryon ratio, (??b), which is the ratio of the average number of photons per unit volume of space to the average number of baryons (protons plus neutrons) per unit volume. At present this ratio is approximately a billion to one (10^9) , but it could be anywhere from one to infinity; it traces back to the degree of asymmetry in matter and anti – matter right after the beginning of the universe – for approximately every billion particles of antimatter, there was a billion and one particles of matter.,,,
    The only livability effect this ratio has is on whether or not galaxies can form that have near – optimally livability zones. As long as this condition is met, the value of this ratio has no further effects on livability. Hence, the DLO predicts that within this range, the value of this ratio will be such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.
    According to my calculations – which have been verified by three other physicists — to within the margin of error of the experimentally determined parameters (~20%), the value of the photon to baryon ratio is such that it maximizes the CMB. This is shown in Figure 1 below. (pg. 13)
    It is easy to see that this prediction could have been disconfirmed. In fact, when I first made the calculations in the fall of 2011, I made a mistake and thought I had refuted this thesis since those calculations showed the intensity of the CMB maximizes at a value different than the photon – baryon ratio in our universe. So, not only does the DLO lead us to expect this ratio, but it provides an ultimate explanation for why it has this value,,, This is a case of a teleological thesis serving both a predictive and an ultimate explanatory role.,,,
    http://home.messiah.edu/~rcoll.....osting.pdf

    Greer Heard Forum: Robin Collins – “God and the Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Discovery” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBWmMU7BXGE

  24. 24
    tjguy says:

    MF @2

    This is a classic case of the puddle that is just the right size to fit the hole it is in.

    There are life forms that exist in all the most extreme conditions on earth now and in the past. There is even evidence that some life forms can survive space travel. If gravity was slightly different the earth might not support us but it is quite possible it would have supported some other life form instead.

    Your interpretation of the data is possible.

    Our interpretation of the data is also possible.

    Both interpretations fit the data.

    Which makes more sense will be a matter of personal opinion which is why there are people who hold both interpretations.

    You cannot prove your interpretation and neither can we prove ours, but the design hypothesis makes a ton more sense to me.

  25. 25
    Zachriel says:

    tjguy: Which makes more sense will be a matter of personal opinion which is why there are people who hold both interpretations.

    You do know what happens to the puddle at the end of the story?

  26. 26
    tjguy says:

    MF @ 15

    I did not meant to imply that all environments lead to life forms – but the range even on earth is extraordinary.

    That is the data. It is indisputable. Certainly different organisms are well suited to exist in very different and in some cases extreme environments.

    But so what?!

    Now comes the interpretation.

    The materialistic interpretation is the one you hold to. You believe that life evolved to exist in these extreme environments. Again, that is one hypothesis that one could hold to.

    There is another possible hypothesis that would fit the data just as well. These organisms were designed to be able to live within a range of environments – with a certain amount of genetic diversity which would allow them to adjust to a number of different environments.

    We see camels with amazing eyelids that enable them to weather the terrible dust storms they face in their environment. That is the data. Were they designed to live in the desert or did they evolve these functions to enable them to live in the desert?

    We see design features for sure. No one questions that. The question is who or what is the architect of that design? Again, both are possible hypotheses. Based on what we know about information, design, the genetic code, the cell, etc., we think the best answer to this question is a “who” rather than a “what”.

  27. 27
    Zachriel says:

    tjguy: You believe that life evolved to exist in these extreme environments. Again, that is one hypothesis that one could hold to.

    Branching descent is strongly supported. There are many examples of organisms adapting to new environments, such as vertebrates adapting to a terrestrial existence.

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    The mud puddle ploy of materialists is completely disingenuous to the evidence at hand. The original atheistic position/prediction was that the universe did not have life in mind and that life, and humans in particular, are ‘just a fluke’ that randomly happened for no particular reason at all.
    The discovery that both the universe and earth exhibit an extreme, incomprehensible, degree of fine-tuning for not only life but particularly for life like human life is something that confirms Theistic presuppositions and disconfirms, indeed is completely antithetical to, Atheistic presuppositions.

    For Atheists to pretend that these discoveries are of no importance is yet another clear example of the depths of intellectual dishonesty atheists are willing to entertain just so to defend their Nihilistic worldview.

  29. 29
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: The mud puddle ploy of materialists is completely disingenuous to the evidence at hand.

    It’s a parallel case. Notably, you didn’t point to a flaw in the puddle’s logic. Indeed, the specified complexity of the hole is off the charts. The puddle concludes the universe, the hole, is finely tuned for his existence.

    bornagain77: The original atheistic position/prediction was …

    You mean scientific explanation.

    bornagain77: … that the universe did not have life in mind and that life, and humans in particular, are ‘just a fluke’ that randomly happened for no particular reason at all.

    Actually, there were many reasons humans evolved, the primary adaptive mechanism being natural selection.

  30. 30
    Joe says:

    Actually, there were many reasons humans evolved, the primary adaptive mechanism being natural selection.

    Unfortunately for that story natural selection has proven to be impotent.

    There are many examples of organisms adapting to new environments, such as vertebrates adapting to a terrestrial existence.

    That example only exists in imagination-land.

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    Your mud puddle example does not even rise to the status of being ‘not even wrong’!

    Atheism is epistemologically self defeating and is thus certainly not ‘scientific’.

    Humans certainly did not evolve from lower primates, and Natural selection is not a ‘reason’, it is a vacuous explanation, a placeholder for ignorance, a gloss for ‘it just happened’ for no reason at all.

  32. 32
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: Your mud puddle example does not even rise to the status of being ‘not even wrong’!

    Notably, you didn’t point to a flaw in the puddle’s logic.

    bornagain77: Humans certainly did not evolve from lower primates

    Branching descent is strongly supported, by the nested hierarchy and by fossil succession.

  33. 33
    jazzcat says:

    Zachriel:

    I refuted the logic and the flaws in the analogy, see my post 17.

  34. 34
    Joe says:

    Me_Think @ 18- What does UV do to methane (and ammonia)?

    Earth’s Earliest Atmospheres

  35. 35
    Joe says:

    Branching descent is strongly supported, by the nested hierarchy and by fossil succession.

    Branching descent doesn’t produce a nested hierarchy and fossil succession has fish-> tetrapods-> fish-a-pods

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    There is no rigid logic to it. The example does not even address the salient points of the evidence at hand for ‘privileged planet’ and ‘privileged species’. i.e. it is ‘not even wrong’ as a counter-argument to the evidence we have.

    i.e. Theists: Why is the universe extremely fine tuned not only for life but life like human life?

    Atheists: Mud Puddles!

    Theists: face palm.

    as to: “Branching descent is strongly supported, by the nested hierarchy and by fossil succession.”

    as you have repeatedly been shown, No it isn’t. The fossil record, not just the Cambrian explosion, is a huge pain for Darwinists. Genetics is all over the map and certainly does not ‘strongly support’ common descent. Moreover you have ZERO evidence that random mutation and natural selection can build ANYTHING of functional significance, not even a single molecular machine, much less can it even begin to explain a human brain that far exceeds the complexity of the entire internet combined.

  37. 37
    bornagain77 says:

    Thanks jazzcat, I missed your post at 17

  38. 38
    Me_Think says:

    Joe @ 34
    UV is nothing more than a energy source. It will break bonds and produce free radicals.

  39. 39
    Joe says:

    UV destroys methane (and ammonia). That means the early atmosphere couldn’t have had “lots of methane”. That is unless you use the unscientific special pleading of some type of shield.

  40. 40
    Joe says:

    Mark Frank:

    but the range even on earth is extraordinary.

    Yes, it is quite the intelligent design. 😉

  41. 41
    Me_Think says:

    Joe @ 39
    Guess I do have to give a link. Here:
    NASA site

    Early in the Earth’s history—about 3.5 billion years ago—there was 1,000 times as much methane in the atmosphere as there is now . The earliest methane was released into the atmosphere by volcanic activity. During this time, Earth’s earliest life appeared. These first, ancient bacteria added to the methane concentration by converting hydrogen and carbon dioxide into methane and water. Oxygen didn’t become a major part of the atmosphere until photosynthetic organisms evolved later in Earth’s history. With no oxygen, methane stayed in the atmosphere longer and at higher concentrations than it does today.

  42. 42
    Joe says:

    Me_Think- I provided a peer-reviewed paper that says otherwise. UV destroys methane, which means methane wouldn’t last long without a shield.

  43. 43
    Joe says:

    From the paper you ignored:

    However, photochemical studies showed that any methane (Lasaga et al. 1971) or ammonia (Kuhn and Atreya 1979; Kasting 1982) in the atmosphere would quickly be destroyed.

  44. 44
    Me_Think says:

    Joe @ 42, 43

    UV destroys methane, which means methane wouldn’t last long without a shield.
    ===========================
    However, photochemical studies showed that any methane (Lasaga et al. 1971) or ammonia (Kuhn and Atreya 1979; Kasting 1982) in the atmosphere would quickly be destroyed.

    Methane converts to water vapour and CO2 when it reacts with hydroxyl radical . Since oxygen was not there is early Earth, there was no Hydroxyl radical (•HO), that is the reason Methane prevailed until Photosynthesis began.

  45. 45
    Joe says:

    UV destroys methane regardless of whether or not oxygen is present. Here is another abstract: UV shielding of early Earth by N2/CH4/CO2 organic haze:

    However, methane and ammonia, both strong greenhouse gases, are destroyed by UV light. Sagan and Chyba (1997) proposed that the early Earth had an organic haze layer produced, as on Titan, by methane photolysis in the presence of nitrogen. Such a layer would preferentially absorb ultraviolet light, thereby allowing ammonia and methane to persist in the atmosphere. However, as in the case of Titan, such a layer would also have an antigreenhouse effect (McKay et al. 1999) which could oppose or even cancel any greenhouse effect generated by the shielded methane and ammonia.

  46. 46
    ppolish says:

    Genesis 1:3 tells of the UV light burning away the thick clouds of early Earth. Love that Book:)

  47. 47
    humbled says:

    Fossil succession? Any actual evidence supporting this fantasy Zachriel?

  48. 48
    Zachriel says:

    jazzcat: I refuted the logic and the flaws in the analogy

    No, but you did demonstrate you entirely missed the point of the analogy. The puddle doesn’t know about rain filling the hole, or water evaporating. The puddle’s observable universe is how staggeringly well the hole fits the puddle.
    http://www.goodreads.com/quote.....dle-waking

  49. 49
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: face palm.

    Notably, you didn’t point to a flaw in the puddle’s logic.

    bornagain77: The fossil record, not just the Cambrian explosion, is a huge pain for Darwinists.

    The fossil record clearly shows a succession of organisms and ecosystems. It also supports the nested hierarchy in time.

    bornagain77: Moreover you have ZERO evidence that random mutation and natural selection can build ANYTHING of functional significance

    Sure we do, but we have to establish the historical ordering first in order to discuss the mechanisms involved in the posited transitions.

  50. 50
    Zachriel says:

    humbled: Fossil succession?

    You might start with the Principle of Superposition. This provides a relative ordering of fossils within the strata.
    http://academic.brooklyn.cuny......hlec8.html

  51. 51
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel jazzcat did a great job at 17 of showing where the your ‘logic’ fails. (I hold that ‘not even wrong’ is a more than fair assessment of your ‘logic’)

    Moreover, what gives you, as an atheistic materialist, the right to use such Theistic concepts as non-material logic and free will to try to prove your point? Remember, you deny that you even have a mind to begin with?!?

    “Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.
    Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules. Hawking needs God In order to deny Him.”
    – Cornelius Hunter
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10344804_736790473055959_5027794313726938258_n.png?oh=32dcc64a81815fd8fbf5884ea44490ed&oe=548E8745&__gda__=1418537725_911886dd89430d275c0e393a46afdb55

    To presuppose that the universe can be understood through logic and reason is to presuppose that there is logic and reasoning behind the universe to be understood in the first place!

    The Great Debate: Does God Exist? – Justin Holcomb – audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site
    Excerpt: The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,,
    http://justinholcomb.com/2012/.....god-exist/

    “If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place.”
    – William J Murray

    Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012
    Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
    By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66221.html

    The fossil record looks nothing like Darwin predicted. The Cambrian explosion by itself proves this point. For you claim that this supports Darwinism is delusional at best and a bald face lie at worse. (my belief is in at worse)

    Moreover, contrary to what you wrote, you first have to demonstrate that unguided Darwinian processes have the capacity to produce functional complexity/information before you can then postulate those unguided processes as sufficient to explain what we can discern of past life, (which is sudden appearance and stasis), much less explain the unfathomed functional complexity we see in present life!

  52. 52
    Silver Asiatic says:

    It’s that if the earth had slightly more gravity than it now has, methane and ammonia gas, which have molecular weights of sixteen and seventeen, respectfully, would remain close to our surface. Since we cannot breathe methane and ammonia, which are toxic, we would die.

    The earth’s gravity is fine tuned for life. If there was slightly more, then there would be no human life.

    The hole is finely tuned to fit the puddle. If the hole was was slightly bigger, then … nothing. Then … whatever, who cares. No consequences. That hole would fit whatever puddle. The same water would fit any vast number of puddles bigger or smaller. The same hole would fit an virtually infinite variety of water quantities.

    Ok, I see. That analogy is supposed to be an argument against fine-tuning. 😉

  53. 53
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: jazzcat did a great job at 17 of showing where the your ‘logic’ fails.

    jazzcat’s argument depends on the puddle having knowledge which it doesn’t have. That’s rather the point of the analogy. We can see what the puddle is missing, revealing the fallacious claim of design simply because the hole fits the puddle staggeringly well.

  54. 54
    ppolish says:

    Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire
    And though the holes were rather small
    They had to count them all.

    Only one had a puddle.

  55. 55
    velikovskys says:

    bornagain77: Moreover you have ZERO evidence that random mutation and natural selection can build ANYTHING of functional significance

    That is assuming that life is not the result of evolutionary processes, that is the question. Just as we don’t know that such a designer exists that can create the design necessary. We do know that micro evolution occurs

  56. 56
    bornagain77 says:

    ‘micro-evolution’ gives us evidence that neo-Darwinism is wrong:

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.

  57. 57
    ppolish says:

    So an important Design Rule would be to overcome the damaging effects of micro evolution. Innovate to live better, evolve to die yikes.

  58. 58
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel,

    “depends on the puddle having knowledge”

    It takes a mind to ‘know’, yet you claim that you, and the puddle, have no mind. Since you can’t even get that first instance of logic right, why in blue blazes do you expect anyone to take anything else you might say about logic, or reality, seriously?

    The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – January 6, 2014
    Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.)
    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.c.....oyne/?_r=0

    “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
    Max Planck (1858–1947), the originator of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931

    “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
    (Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.)

    Moreover, the argument from fine-tuning is based on what we do know, not on what we don’t know. For instance we ‘know’ that the initial entropy of the universe was so extremely finely-tuned,,,

    This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.
    (Roger Penrose – from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 – 1989)

    ,,, was so extremely finely-tuned that we should, on materialism, be seeing “highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, (or mud puddles writing shakespeare plays 🙂 ), since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range”,,,

    Multiverse and the Design Argument – William Lane Craig
    Excerpt: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10^10(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1 in 10^10(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1 in 10^10(123). (Penrose calls it “utter chicken feed” by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse. — Penrose puts it bluntly “these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”.
    http://www.reasonablefaith.org.....n-argument

    The Fine Tuning of the Universe – drcraigvideos
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA

    Moreover, according to the materialistic philosophy, there are no apparent reasons why the value of each transcendent universal constant could not have varied dramatically from what they actually are. In fact, the presumption of materialism expects a fairly large amount of flexibility, indeed chaos, in the underlying constants for the universe. This is since the constants themselves are postulated to randomly ’emerge’ from some, as the drcraigvideo illustrated, completely undefined material basis at the Big Bang. In fact if an atheist were ever to be truly consistent in his thinking (which would be a miracle in its own right) he would have to admit that he should a-priori expect variance in the universal laws and constants, like this following astronomer did:

    Scientists Question Nature’s Fundamental Laws – Michael Schirber – 2006
    Excerpt: “There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant,” says astronomer Michael Murphy of the University of Cambridge. “These are famous numbers in physics, but we have no real reason for why they are what they are.”
    The observed differences are small-roughly a few parts in a million-but the implications are huge (if they hold up): The laws of physics would have to be rewritten, not to mention we might need to make room for six more spatial dimensions than the three that we are used to.”,,,
    The speed of light, for instance, might be measured one day with a ruler and a clock. If the next day the same measurement gave a different answer, no one could tell if the speed of light changed, the ruler length changed, or the clock ticking changed.
    http://www.space.com/2613-scie.....-laws.html

    Indeed, the materialistic worldview is, at its ‘random’ base, very antagonistic to the whole ideal that we should find such unchanging laws. This fact alone goes a long way towards explaining why there were no atheists at the founding of the modern scientific revolution. Yet, Christianity, contrary to what atheists would prefer to believe, is very nurturing to such an idea of unchanging universal constants. As C. S. Lewis put it:

    “Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it.”
    Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

    Moreover, most atheists do not seem to realize that if the universal constants were actually to have been found to have even a small variance in them over deep time then this would destroy our ability to practice science rationally, for it would undermine our ability to mathematically model the universe in a reliable fashion.

    “The observed differences are small-roughly a few parts in a million-but the implications are huge: The laws of physics would have to be rewritten, not to mention we might need to make room for six more spatial dimensions than the three that we are used to.”
    Scientists Question Nature’s Fundamental Laws – Michael Schirber – 2006

    Verse and Music:

    Psalm 119:89-91
    Your eternal word, O Lord, stands firm in heaven. Your faithfulness extends to every generation, as enduring as the earth you created. Your regulations remain true to this day, for everything serves your plans.

    Hillsong United – You Are Faithful – With Subtitles/Lyrics
    https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=you+are+faithful&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

  59. 59
    Me_Think says:

    Joe @ 45

    UV destroys methane regardless of whether or not oxygen is present. Here is another abstract: UV shielding of early Earth by N2/CH4/CO2 organic haze:

    UV is just a electromagnetic radiation. It can only break bonds , the free radical from the CH4 has to combine with some other element to get ‘destroyed’. The author seems to specify Nitrogen as the possible element. The author contends that even if there is a chance of methane getting ‘destroyed’, it wasn’t.
    Even without any protection, Methane is not ‘destroyed’ completely. It still has a ‘life time’.
    Even with an active, biggest known Methane sink (tropospheric Hydroxyl radical),Methane gets a life time of 8.4 years, assuming no further Methane production.

    The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 derived from this loss rate and the global burden is 8.4 years. CH4 loss results in 9.6 years for loss due to tropospheric OH, 120 years for stratospheric loss, and 160 years for the soil sink.( IPPC 3rd assessment report)

  60. 60
    Joe says:

    UV is just a electromagnetic radiation. It can only break bonds

    I know what UV is and it breaks the bonds that make methane what it is. That means methane no longer exists- it is destroyed.

    The IPCC is talking about methane in our protected atmosphere.

    Peer-review trumps you, MT.

  61. 61
    Joe says:

    The fossil record clearly shows a succession of organisms and ecosystems.

    That is your opinion

    It also supports the nested hierarchy in time.

    Only if just about anything can be a nested hierarchy. Gradual evolution doesn’t predict a nested hierarchy for the reason Darwin provided and you ignore as if your ignorance means something.

  62. 62
    Me_Think says:

    Joe @ 60
    So according to you early Earth had no methane but was full of oxygen – even before photosynthesis ?! If not oxygen, then what else ?

  63. 63
    Joe says:

    MT- You are obviously delusional as I said NOTHING about oxygen. However UV will dissociate H2O and that would put some oxygen into the atmosphere.

    UV will breakdown methane regardless if oxygen is present or not.

    But anyway you seem to have other issues as you are making things up- things that I never said.

  64. 64
    Me_Think says:

    Joe @ 63
    The OP is about Size of Earth lowering the atmospheric Methane layer, I mentioned bacteria survived in methane because early earth had 1000 times more methane than that we have now. You said methane gets destroyed (ignoring that even with active Methane sink and no continuous production , Methane has 8 years life time,soil sink has 200 years lifetime) so you are neither addressing the issue in OP nor about Hydroxyl Radicals (formed by oxygen), what is your point?

  65. 65
    jazzcat says:

    Zachriel @53

    “jazzcat’s argument depends on the puddle having knowledge which it doesn’t have. That’s rather the point of the analogy. We can see what the puddle is missing, revealing the fallacious claim of design simply because the hole fits the puddle staggeringly well.”

    I looked over my comment @17 and nowhere at all did I depend on any puddle having any knowledge. Perhaps you could quote the relevant text from me?

    The point with the analogy is that it is a flawed analogy, rather it is not an analogy at all to the fine-tuning argument. The phrase, “fits staggeringly well,” is not a sufficient condition to claim fine tuning. Fine tuning means if the conditions that contain the existence of something were different then that something could not exist. Engineers call these conditions, “tolerances.” Physicists call them “initial conditions.” Think of other things that man fine-tunes for a purpose and then compare that to life in the universe. Look back at my lock/key example and its corresponding function of opening a door. This is the correct analogy because the lock and key are finely tuned for the purpose of opening the door. Would you claim that the key is NOT designed for the lock to open the door because of the “puddle analogy?” Would you make statements such as this:

    “Given the key’s ‘observable universe’ it is no surprise the key fits into the lock and the door opens, because it exists! The key does not have knowledge of its existence therefore the key is not finely tuned for the lock for the specific purpose of opening the door.

    Another point is that ID theory would never claim that the puddle in the hole is best explained by an intelligent agent because it doesn’t meet the test of specified complexity. The puddle in the hole is due to law-like necessity. If the hole were of a different size a puddle could still exist so it’s not finely tuned. By contrast the key fitting into the lock is NOT due to any law like necessity. It does meet specified complexity because it is a highly improbable arrangement of matter that specifies an independent function, namely the opening of a door. The lock and key are finely tuned to open the door if the tolerances or conditions are withing narrow parameters. We can then infer that they were designed.

    For future reference if ID claims things are best explained by intelligence, it is better to analogize things that we KNOW are designed rather than puddles in a hole which may or may not be designed. If ID claims a certain structure is finely tuned for a purpose it is better to analogize things that we KNOW are designed for a purpose. If your analogies turn KNOWN designs up on their heads (reasoning that they are not designed or not finely tuned) then I would conclude your analogies are flawed.

  66. 66
    Joe says:

    MT:

    The OP is about Size of Earth lowering the atmospheric Methane layer, I mentioned bacteria survived in methane because early earth had 1000 times more methane than that we have now.

    And I provided peer-review that says the methane level could not have been that high.

    You said methane gets destroyed (ignoring that even with active Methane sink and no continuous production , Methane has 8 years life time,soil sink has 200 years lifetime)

    LoL! I cannot ignore what is irrelevant. Methane has an 8 year lifetime in our present atmosphere. It would not have such a long life in the primordial atmosphere. Methane in soil is NOT atmospheric methane.

    My point is that you are WRONG about the methane level of the primordial atmosphere, duh. That is very clear to anyone with an education level above pre-school

  67. 67
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: It takes a mind to ‘know’, yet you claim that you, and the puddle, have no mind.

    That is not our position.

    bornagain77: Moreover, the argument from fine-tuning is based on what we do know, not on what we don’t know.

    The puddle’s conclusion is based on what the puddle knows.

    jazzcat: I looked over my comment @17 and nowhere at all did I depend on any puddle having any knowledge.

    Then, as we said, you missed the analogy. The puddle is aware of its hole. You will repeat your inability to understand the analogy here.

    jazzcat: Another point is that ID theory would never claim that the puddle in the hole is best explained by an intelligent agent because it doesn’t meet the test of specified complexity. The puddle in the hole is due to law-like necessity.

    The puddle is aware of the fit, but not aware of the law-like necessity. The puddle can even calculate the specified complexity of the hole. It fits staggeringly well.

  68. 68
    Me_Think says:

    Joe @ 66,

    My point is that you are WRONG about the methane level of the primordial atmosphere, duh. That is very clear to anyone with an education level above pre-school

    Either you should believe the NASA study I cited or you believe the paper you cited ! The paper you cited shows Methane layer was protected – right ? So was the Methane level high or not in early Earth (ignore your belief that it was not protected- remember,your paper doesn’t say so) ?

    LoL! I cannot ignore what is irrelevant. Methane has an 8 year lifetime in our present atmosphere

    If Methane has such a high level in today’s atmosphere with active Methane Sink, then it was far more (1000 times more as per NASA) than it is now- why don’t you get the simple point ?

  69. 69
    jazzcat says:

    Zachriel @67

    No, I’m afraid you don’t understand your analogy. Is the hole finely tuned for the puddle to fit in it? We would correctly argue no. Is the lock and key finely tuned for the purpose to open the door (see my comments 17 and 65)? I would argue yes but according to your puddle analogy you would answer no. This means applying your analogies to known designs and known finely tuned structures serving a purpose yields a false result.

  70. 70
    jazzcat says:

    In order for the puddle to “determine” if the hole it resides in was finely tuned for its existence it would have to theorize changing the conditions of its universe or the hole. If it found that changing the conditions still allowed for its existence then it could “conclude” that the hole is NOT finely tuned.

  71. 71

    Zachriel said:

    It’s a parallel case. Notably, you didn’t point to a flaw in the puddle’s logic.

    It’s hard to believe that any serious person considers the “puddle” analogy to be useful as anything other than blatant rhetoric.

    The glaring flaw is that with a puddle, slightly altering the physical characteristics of the hole does nothing to change the capacity of the hole to hold a puddle of water.

    Universal properties that are “fine-tuned for life” would logically equate to “features of a hole fine-tuned to hold water”. If you slightly alter any of the fundamental forces of the universe, in many of the cases you don’t even end up with a stable universe that lasts very long or which produces any sort of interesting material arrangements.

    With the puddle, you can deepen it, chip it, change the shape, partially fill it, and it still holds a puddle of water.

    What’s really interesting here is how Darwinists are so easily seduced by the most glaringly false and pitiful analogies, and analogies that simply assume the very point under debate. Talk about clutching at straws.

  72. 72
    Me_Think says:

    jazzcat @ 69

    Is the hole finely tuned for the puddle to fit in it? We would correctly argue no.

    That is exactly the point. Despite the hole not being fine tuned for the puddle, the puddle thinks the hole is finely tuned for it. Note that the puddle argument is a satire, and not a literal argument.

  73. 73
    Zachriel says:

    jazzcat: In order for the puddle to “determine” if the hole it resides in was finely tuned for its existence it would have to theorize changing the conditions of its universe or the hole.

    That’s right. Could the hole be a different shape? Given that it could, then the specific complexity is staggering.

    William J Murray: The glaring flaw is that with a puddle, slightly altering the physical characteristics of the hole does nothing to change the capacity of the hole to hold a puddle of water.

    We know that, but the puddle doesn’t.

  74. 74
    Joe says:

    MT:

    Either you should believe the NASA study I cited or you believe the paper you cited !

    LoL! NASA’a was a bald declaration- there wasn’t any science cited. OTOH my paper was peer-reviewed with plenty of studies cited.

    The paper you cited shows Methane layer was protected – right ?

    No, one of the papers tried to show how methane could have stayed but it didn’t provide any evidence that the scenario was real.

    If Methane has such a high level in today’s atmosphere with active Methane Sink, then it was far more (1000 times more as per NASA) than it is now-

    That doesn’t follow and methane doesn’t have a high level in today’s atmosphere.

  75. 75
    Joe says:

    Only evos would think that puddles can think and contemplate their existence. Talk about desperation…

  76. 76
    Joe says:

    The puddle is aware of its hole.

    The puddle is more aware than you are. 😛

  77. 77
    Me_Think says:

    Joe @ 74
    :- ) Yeah, NASA routinely makes bald declarations .

  78. 78
    jazzcat says:

    Me Think @72

    “The puddle THINKS the hole is finely tuned for it.” I’m calling your bluff. How could you possibly know if you prescribe thoughts to a puddle that it would Think the hole is finely tuned for it??

    Zachriel @72

    “we know that but the puddle doesn’t.” Same illogical nonsense prescribing certain thoughts to a puddle and not others.

    Zachriel @73

    “That’s right. Could the hole be a different shape? Given that it could, then the specific complexity is staggering.” Incorrect, specified complexity is when a complex arrangement of matter ALSO conforms to an independent pattern or function (lock/key opening a door) Will you ever acknowledge that part of my argument?

  79. 79
    Joe says:

    MT:

    You want NASA to cite someone else paper ?!

    They didn’t cite anything. They didn’t even say how they made their determination.

    You think NASA is a lower authority than lone scientist?

    What lone scientist? But yes, anyone who doesn’t show their work or provide any evidence is lower than someone who does.

    It’s as if you are proudly ignorant.

  80. 80
    Joe says:

    Me_Think @ 77 ????????? Your entire position is a satire and evos use the puddle argument as a real/ literal argument.

  81. 81
    Me_Think says:

    Joe @ 75
    I don’t know why IDers take satire so seriously 🙂

  82. 82
    Zachriel says:

    jazzcat: How could you possibly know if you prescribe thoughts to a puddle that it would Think the hole is finely tuned for it??

    It’s a thought-experiment. You have to use your imagination. What is the puddle’s mistake in reasoning based on what it observes?

    jazzcat: specified complexity is when a complex arrangement of matter ALSO conforms to an independent pattern or function

    Yes, the independent pattern is the shape of the puddle, the puddle not knowing the underlying cause of the symmetry.

  83. 83
    Joe says:

    Me Think- evos don’t use the argument as a satire. So the question is “why do evos take satire so seriously?”

  84. 84
    Me_Think says:

    Joe,
    The puddle argument is a satire popularized by Douglas Adams. I don’t know how others use it.

  85. 85
    Joe says:

    What is the puddle’s mistake in reasoning based on what it observes?

    In my imagination the puddle doesn’t react as you say. That alone means your attempt is nonsense.

  86. 86
    jazzcat says:

    Try thinking of it this way:

    The puddle would not infer the hole was designed for it simply by existing in it. It would only infer design AFTER it notices that changing the conditions of the hole would cause the puddle to never exist.

  87. 87
    Joe says:

    I know who started it, MT. You and your ilk still use it as a serious argument. That is because you are desperate losers.

  88. 88
    Zachriel says:

    Me_Think: I don’t know why IDers take satire so seriously

    They can’t imagine being the puddle, so they don’t “get it”.

  89. 89
    Zachriel says:

    jazzcat: The puddle would not infer the hole was designed for it simply by existing in it.

    It infers design because of the very close fit to its needs. Indeed, even as the puddle evaporates, and the hole shrinks, it continues to point to the staggeringly close fit.

    jazzcat: It would only infer design AFTER it notices that changing the conditions of the hole would cause the puddle to never exist.

    It’s not clear whether the puddle would continue to exist if the hole were a different shape, but it is clear that the hole fits staggeringly well.

  90. 90
    jazzcat says:

    Zachriel @82

    “The independent pattern is the shape of the puddle.” Incorrect, that is not what specified complexity is. Here would be an example of specified complexity: A puddle exists in a complex network of caverns on the ground (I guess this would be a river lol) If the river spells out a meaningful sentence such as, “I am a river.” The cavern is complex (highly improbable) but conforms to an independent pattern or function, in this case a meaningful english sentence. The mere “shape of the puddle” is not specificity that is independent of the puddle itself.

  91. 91
    Joe says:

    No,Zachriel, you and your ilk don’t “get it” and you never will. If the puddle could the puddle wouldn’t infer design. You are wrong, as usual.

  92. 92
    jazzcat says:

    Zachriel:

    SO you think that ID infers design just because something staggeringly fits well? This is a strawman argument.

    “It’s not clear whether the puddle would continue to exist if the hole were a different shape.”

    As a thought experiment: If it WAS clear that changing the hole would not allow the puddle to exist and given the hole was there first would you infer that the hole was designed to allow the puddle’s existence? Would you conclude that the hole “knew” the puddle would exist in it at some point in the future?

  93. 93
    Zachriel says:

    jazzcat: Incorrect, that is not what specified complexity is.

    We are using Dembski’s definition of specified complex in his paper Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence. The specification is the shape of the puddle, which as far as the puddle knows is independent of the shape of the hole.


    Jazzpuddle posits that if the hole were even a tiny bit different, then the puddle couldn’t exist. The Z-volution group points out that the puddle could just change shapes within limits, that the staggeringly close fit is due to some underlying principle that matches the puddle to the hole. Jazzpuddle waves his watery appendages, “There’s no such theory!”

  94. 94
    chris haynes says:

    Hate to pop balloons, but,
    speaking as a graduate of a Creationist High School, this
    this methane, ammonia, and water jazz isn’t Scientific, its B.S.

    In the atmosphere, ALL these molecules are whizzing around, bumping into each other. So they all move at various speeds, following Maxwell’s speed distribution formula.

    The light ones move, on average, faster. But when the difference in molecular weight is small, as it is between water and methane, the difference in average speed is slight. Its much less than the difference among water or methane molecules.

    For either water or methane, the faster ones tend to escape the atmosphere. More methane will escape than water, but not by much. So this is not an “explanation” for why we got a lot of water but not a lot of methane.

    I suspect the explanation for that is
    1) The oceans will replenish the water molecules that escape the earth, while there are no comparable oceans of methane.
    2) Any methane in the atmosphere (its the main ingredient in natural gas) reacts with oxygen, and will thus vanish without even having to escape from the earth. Water doesn’t react with anything in the atmosphre.

  95. 95
    Silver Asiatic says:

    It’s hard to believe that any serious person considers the “puddle” analogy to be useful as anything other than blatant rhetoric.

    That’s the best argument they’ve got. That and imaginary universes.

    With the puddle, you can deepen it, chip it, change the shape, partially fill it, and it still holds a puddle of water.

    I think a 10 year old could see through this stupidity. There are no consequences if ether puddle or water change. Change some of the finely-tuned constants of the universe and we have no life on earth.

    So they turn to the comic-book philosophy of Douglas Adams. I remember kids growing up thinking his book was a work of philosophical genius. It retains that stature for many materialists today. The puddle analogy makes them giggle, as if they’ve solved the problem that even serious atheist scientists struggle with.

    And they think creationists are ignorant and childish for believing the Bible.

  96. 96
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Every physical thing can be said to fit its space “staggeringly well”. That’s supposed to convince somebody of something?

  97. 97
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: Every physical thing can be said to fit its space “staggeringly well”.

    It’s the independent specification of the hole that makes it specified complexity, the pattern that signifies intelligence.

  98. 98
    jazzcat says:

    Zachriel @93

    “Jazzpuddle posits that if the hole were even a tiny bit different, then the puddle couldn’t exist. The Z-volution group points out that the puddle could just change shapes within limits, that the staggeringly close fit is due to some underlying principle that matches the puddle to the hole. Jazzpuddle waves his watery appendages, “There’s no such theory!”

    Jazzpuddle retorts: if the puddle could NOT just change shapes within limits, then your theory would be unsupported. What are the limits? What are the parameters?

    I would conclude that IF life demonstrates these capabilities, to “change shapes” or “adapt or emerge in different environments” then fine tuning would be a red herring. However it has been demonstrated that life DOES NOT have these properties. Life it appears is extremely constrained to exist among very narrow possible physics.

  99. 99
    Me_Think says:

    Chris haynes @ 94

    Any methane in the atmosphere (its the main ingredient in natural gas) reacts with oxygen, and will thus vanish without even having to escape from the earth. Water doesn’t react with anything in the atmosphere.

    Yes. Methane reacts with Hydroxyl radical and creates H2O and Co2 in lower atmosphere (That’s the reason the lower atmosphere – troposhere is a Methane sink).

  100. 100
    jazzcat says:

    Zachriel:

    Please go back to my lock/key analogy. If the lock/key relationship is tightly constrained so that if you tweaked the grooves on either then opening the door is impossible

    Are the lock and key finely tuned to allow the opening of a door? Are the lock and key designed for the purpose of opening the door?

  101. 101
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “bornagain77: It takes a mind to ‘know’, yet you claim that you, and the puddle, have no mind.

    That is not our position.”

    🙂

    when you say ‘our position’ are you referring to you and the puddle? i.e. Did you and the puddle have a discussion about your illogical argument so as to arrive at ‘our position’?

    More seriously, if you do not deny the reality of your own conscious mind/free will, which is not reducible to your material brain, then why in blue blazes are you defending materialism with such ludicrous tactics as you are presently doing?

    Doubts on Darwinism (Per Thomas Nagel) – JP Moreland, PhD – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Oc1lvvt60Y

    Mind and Cosmos – Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False – Thomas Nagel
    Excerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history.
    http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/pro.....9919758.do

    “I have argued patiently against the prevailing form of naturalism, a reductive materialism that purports to capture life and mind through its neo-Darwinian extension.” “…, I find this view antecedently unbelievable—a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense”.
    Thomas Nagel – “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False” – pg.128

    Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century (Book – 2009)
    Excerpt: Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however, demonstrates_empirically_that this reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false.
    http://www.amazon.com/Irreduci.....1442202068

  102. 102
    jazzcat says:

    Zachriel @93

    “The specification is the shape of the puddle, which as far as the puddle knows is independent of the shape of the hole.” Again how do you know the limits of what the puddle knows? We know that the shape of the puddle is Dependent not Independent of the shape of the hole. Similarly we know that the shape of the key is Independent of the shape of the lock.

  103. 103
    Me_Think says:

    jazzcat @ 100

    Please go back to my lock/key analogy. If the lock/key relationship is tightly constrained so that if you tweaked the grooves on either then opening the door is impossible

    How do you think thieves manage to pick locks ? There are ‘master keys’ too.

  104. 104
    jazzcat says:

    Me Think @103

    Excellent point, even though you didn’t answer my questions as to whether or not the system was finely tuned or designed for a purpose.

    Thank you for affirming ID theory. Your statement gives testament to the necessary involvement of an intelligent agent.

  105. 105
    Me_Think says:

    Thank you for affirming ID theory. Your statement gives testament to the necessary involvement of an intelligent agent.

    You thought lock and key was not intelligently designed ?

  106. 106
    Zachriel says:

    jazzcat: if the puddle could NOT just change shapes within limits, then your theory would be unsupported. What are the limits? What are the parameters?

    Good question. With puddles, Z-volution posits it can vary only within narrow parameters. If the hole is not closed, or if the depression is tilted too far, then it will not hold the puddle, and the puddle will cease to exist. Of course, Z-volution only has a hypothesis at this point, and can’t directly test the theory.

    With evolution, there is still a lot unknown, but liquid water for millions of years is probably the minimum requirement. For higher life, it requires liquid water for much longer periods.

    jazzcat: Life it appears is extremely constrained to exist among very narrow possible physics.

    Yes, puddles are extremely constrained, even given the Z-volution group’s theory of puddle hole formation. Jazzpuddle insists this constraint is strong evidence of design, and that’s even granting Z-volution’s theory, which Jazzpuddle rejects as preposterous saying it’s a “red herring”.

    jazzcat: We know that the shape of the puddle is Dependent not Independent of the shape of the hole.

    That’s the whole point of the analogy, that we know something the puddle doesn’t.

  107. 107
    jazzcat says:

    Me Think @105

    To the contrary, from our uniform and repeated experience constrained lock/key relationships are the result of an intelligent agent. I fully acknowledge that the lock and key were intelligently designed. BUT, using the puddle analogy one could argue that it isn’t. Just substitute lock for hole and puddle for key. If the puddle analogy was logical then it would not ascribe a false statement that the lock and key were NOT designed. Since the puddle analogy leads to the lock/key being Not designed or Not finely tuned then the puddle analogy is illogical and should be discarded from further debates on fine-tuning.

  108. 108
    Silver Asiatic says:

    It’s the independent specification of the hole that makes it specified complexity, the pattern that signifies intelligence.

    You’re obviously not being serious – which is good for me to know.

  109. 109
    Zachriel says:

    jazzcat: To the contrary, from our uniform and repeated experience constrained lock/key relationships are the result of an intelligent agent.

    In evolution, lock-and-key evolves from a less specified fit to a more specified fit.

    jazzcat: If the puddle analogy was logical then it would not ascribe a false statement that the lock and key were NOT designed.

    Jazzpuddle insists the lock-and-key of the puddle and hole is due to design. What is wrong with Jazzpuddle’s reasoning?

  110. 110
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: You’re obviously not being serious – which is good for me to know.

    Silverpuddle waves his watery appendages.

  111. 111
    jazzcat says:

    Zachriel:

    How would the puddle not know its shape is dependent on the shape of the hole? Why would the puddle not know that its form is fluid and fills empty spaces no matter what type?

    The shape of the puddle is dependent on the shape of the hole because of what we know, it doesn’t matter what the puddle does or doesn’t know. If the puddle knew it was a puddle in a hole why would it NOT know its fluid concept?

  112. 112
    Zachriel says:

    jazzcat: How would the puddle not know its shape is dependent on the shape of the hole?

    Um, it’s a puddle. In any case, that’s the thought-experiment.

    jazzcat: If the puddle knew it was a puddle in a hole why would it NOT know its fluid concept?

    Because it has no way to vary its shape or to test its contours. It has only the single example, just like humans only have the single example. It’s possible that the specifics of what makes the universe what it is have a unifying symmetry, but that still escapes the ken of puddles and humans.

  113. 113
    jazzcat says:

    Zachriel @ 109

    “Jazzpuddle insists the lock-and-key of the puddle and hole is due to design. What is wrong with Jazzpuddle’s reasoning?”

    Not ONCE did I say that. Quote me, then there is no question what I said.

    The puddle in a hole is precisely NOT a lock/key relationship that performs a function INDEPENDENT of their constrained fit. If it were then logically you Zachriel would conclude that the lock on your house door lock was not designed but rather evolved naturally from a primitive less constrained lock/key.

    “In evolution, lock-and-key evolves from a less specified fit to a more specified fit.”

    Then your theory runs counter to uniform and repeated experience. Did your house lock/key evolve from a less specified fit to a more specified fit through natural selection?

    The problem with the universe is that the lock was SET up from the beginning and remained constant throughout time, there was no primitive less constrained lock.

  114. 114
    bornagain77 says:

    Semi related:

    Darwin’s Legacy – Donald R. Prothero – February 2012
    Excerpt: “For the first decade after the paper [Punctuated Equilibrium] was published, it was the most controversial and hotly argued idea in all of paleontology.,,, Many paleontologists came forward and pointed out that the geological literature was one vast monument to stasis, with relatively few cases where anyone had observed gradual evolution.,, ,, paleontologists all over the world saw that stasis was the general pattern, and that gradualism was rare—and that is still the consensus 40 years later. …
    In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate.
    http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-15/#feature

    apparently the water has no use for the hole hypothesis! 🙂

  115. 115
    Zachriel says:

    jazzcat: Not ONCE did I say that.

    Jazzpuddle is not jazzcat. Jazzpuddle is a puddle.

    jazzcat: The puddle in a hole is precisely NOT a lock/key relationship that performs a function INDEPENDENT of their constrained fit.

    It holds the puddle, a function of utmost importance to the puddle.

    jazzcat: Did your house lock/key evolve from a less specified fit to a more specified fit through natural selection?

    No. They originated by different mechanisms.

    jazzcat: The problem with the universe is that the lock was SET up from the beginning and remained constant throughout time, there was no primitive less constrained lock.

    The hole has always fit the puddle staggeringly well.

  116. 116
    jazzcat says:

    Zachriel @112

    “Um, it’s a puddle. In any case, that’s the thought-experiment.”

    Here’s another thought experiment: Could the puddle logically infer that its hole was designed for its existence? Which sort of indicators would allow the puddle to logically conclude that the hole was finely tuned to allow for the existence of the puddle?

  117. 117
    Zachriel says:

    jazzcat: Could the puddle logically infer that its hole was designed for its existence?

    That’s the question entailed in the analogy. We know that the puddle’s reasoning is flawed. The exact fit could be due to design, or it could be due to some underlying process or symmetry. The exact alone is not sufficient to make the determination. And that’s the point of the analogy.

  118. 118
    kairosfocus says:

    Z, your attempt to dismiss the significance of prong height codes and key-lock fit or other instances of parts co-adapted to fit and work together, caught my eye. FYI, a puddle, as we all know, is simply what results of the mechanical necessity of water etc flowing or falling into and filling a low spot, as I just had to wade through when crossing a field (it’s been raining and the ground is saturated). Low contingency natural regularity. Not relevant to the FSCO/I stored in say codes in mRNA. And, as for this is fine tuned, the lack of contingency in the situation is revealing of a pivotal point. For, on cosmological fine tuning, the many parameters are not credibly driven by any superlaw that forces the values, and if that were so, that law would be a programming law that would raise very serious questions of purposeful intent. BTW, the same would obtain were it shown that there is a superlaw in the physics and chemistry of the cosmos that forces formation of life. Though, with the high degree of contingency involved in cell based life, that is extremely unlikely. KF

  119. 119
    jazzcat says:

    Zachriel @115

    “No. They originated by different mechanisms.” How do you know? This ties into my earlier comment relating to the thought experiment: how can you know its a different cause ?

  120. 120
    jazzcat says:

    Zachriel @117

    “That’s the question entailed in the analogy. We know that the puddle’s reasoning is flawed. The exact fit could be due to design, or it could be due to some underlying process or symmetry. The exact alone is not sufficient to make the determination. And that’s the point of the analogy.”

    Where the analogy is flawed is that ID does not argue design from exact fit. Where your analogy also fails is to assume that the puddle CANNOT know its existence is constrained. We CAN. and we HAVE.

    As an aside, can you find it reasonable that there are clues to suggest foresight knowledge? An example would be a surprise party. The surprised person could reasonably infer that the people at his party KNEW he was coming. Could we not find similar clues in the universe that suggested it “knew” life was going to happen?

  121. 121
    jazzcat says:

    “jazzcat: The puddle in a hole is precisely NOT a lock/key relationship that performs a function INDEPENDENT of their constrained fit.

    Zachriel: It holds the puddle, a function of utmost importance to the puddle.”

    Still NOT a lock/key relationship that performs a function INDEPENDENT of their fit. Holding the puddle is DEPENDENT.

  122. 122
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Zachriel 110

    Silverpuddle waves his watery appendages.

    I know what you mean. Fine-tuning arguments often trigger theophobia and the uncontrollable desire to ridicule God for no apparent reason. I’ve seen it before. It happens.

  123. 123
    ppolish says:

    “puddle filling a hole” is a bit babyish. Come on puddle people. You have explored the formation of your puddle and understand how it filled up starting at the first trillionth of a trillionth second. You know puddle is expanding but don’t know why. Dark Puddle Bits and Dark Puddle Energy are your best guesses.

    And the puddle fits the hole precisely to 120 decimal places. If the puddle changes by .000
    0000000000000000000000000000000000000
    000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 it could not exist.

    Ok, maybe there are many puddles out there, Some big, some small. Some overflowing, some dry. If you have a trillion trillion trillion trillion many more trillion puddles out there, maybe on can be as fine tuned as this one. Don’t hold your breath.

  124. 124
    JimFit says:

    The Puddle allegory can be used to prove reincarnation true as well because the water vaporizes at the end of the story to the clouds and then again to earth to another puddle through the water circle lol

    The Fine Tuning is not due to physical necessity to claim that it is due to a physical hole, even if that was the case the hole could be opened by an intelligent being, there are artificial puddles you know…lol

    Atheists are getting more and more desperate to prove that they are random cosmic mistakes that nothingness spewed. They suffer from manic depression.

  125. 125
    Zachriel says:

    jazzcat: a puddle, as we all know, is simply what results of the mechanical necessity

    Yes, that’s why the analogy works. We know something the puddle doesn’t.

    jazzcat: For, on cosmological fine tuning, the many parameters are not credibly driven by any superlaw that forces the values

    And you know this how exactly?

    jazzcat: How do you know?

    We start with the evidence for branching descent; the nested hierarchy and the fossil succession.

    jazzcat: Where the analogy is flawed is that ID does not argue design from exact fit.

    Just staggeringly well.

    jazzcat: Still NOT a lock/key relationship that performs a function INDEPENDENT of their fit.

    The independence is between the hole and the puddle; just like the claim that the universe has to have a certain shape to contain you.

    Silver Asiatic: Fine-tuning arguments often trigger theophobia and the uncontrollable desire to ridicule God for no apparent reason.

    We merely pointed out that you were engaging in handwaving.

  126. 126
    ppolish says:

    No respectable Physicist would use puddle analogy for the fine tuning. It’s playground stuff.

    Atheist Leonard Susskind explains clearly that the fine tuning is due to:
    1) Chance – Absolutely No Way per Leonard.
    2) God – Please No Way per Leonard,
    3) Multi/MegaVerse – Please, Way, per Leonard

    No puddle argument or analogy lol

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ata_player

  127. 127
    Zachriel says:

    ppolish: No respectable Physicist would use puddle analogy

    It’s not a physical argument. It’s an illustration of a fallacious argument to design.

  128. 128
    ppolish says:

    Physical Science indicates God Design is on the short list for the explanation of fine tuning.
    Occam Razor picks as simplest explanation btw.

    Don’t care so much about debating fallacious arguments to design.

  129. 129
    Silver Asiatic says:

    We merely pointed out that you were engaging in handwaving.

    You might consider taking responsibility for your own post and not assigning it to an unidentified group of people, “we”? Just a thought. And your reference was obvious ridicule as I pointed out, as much as you’ve tried to hand-wave it away here.

    A hole is not specified or complex. Water does not always fit the hole “staggeringly well” but can overflow or underfill. Rain may entirely avoid a hole. Water fits every contour “staggeringly well”. Rocks fill holes also as does sand. The analogy says nothing.

    just like the claim that the universe has to have a certain shape to contain you.

    Ok, a hole supposedly, has to have a specific shape to contain rainwater, just like the earth has to have certain conditions to support human life.

    Ok, I’ve got a good sense about your understanding of fine-tuning arguments now. And yes, you are being serious about this argument.

  130. 130
    Me_Think says:

    Physical Science indicates God Design is on the short list for the explanation of fine tuning.
    Occam Razor picks as simplest explanation btw.

    Identifying designer is going to lead to host of problems – including explanation of capabilities, mechanisms of managing trillions of processes, existence beyond space-time, multiple dimension etc. It is the most complicated explanation.

  131. 131
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: Rain may entirely avoid a hole.

    Great point! Only if there is a puddle to consider the situation, the puddle equivalent of the anthropic principle.

    Silver Asiatic: A hole is not specified or complex. Water does not always fit the hole “staggeringly well” but can overflow or underfill. Rain may entirely avoid a hole. Water fits every contour “staggeringly well”. Rocks fill holes also as does sand.

    The puddle doesn’t know all that.

    Silver Asiatic: Rain may entirely avoid a hole.

    Not any rainwater, but the very puddle who is contemplating the very hole it is in.

    Silver Asiatic: The analogy says nothing.

    C’mon people. The analogy is very simple.

  132. 132
    Joe says:

    No, the analogy is very stupid.

  133. 133
    Joe says:

    MT:
    ?

    Identifying designer is going to lead to host of problems

    Only in your mind.

    including explanation of capabilities, mechanisms of managing trillions of processes, existence beyond space-time, multiple dimension etc.

    That doesn’t make any sense.

  134. 134
    Joe says:

    It’s an illustration of a fallacious argument to design.

    No, it isn’t. It is a desperate attempt at trying to show a “fallacious argument to design”, but it fails because it is so stupid.

  135. 135
    Joe says:

    The puddle analogy in real life:

    “This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — it’s dirty, rocky and uncomfortable, isn’t it? In fact it is so dirty and rocky why am I even in it? This is a mess and wouldn’t happen if someone designed a hole for me.”

  136. 136
    jazzcat says:

    Zachriel @125

    -“jazzcat: a puddle, as we all know, is simply what results of the mechanical necessity
    -Z: Yes, that’s why the analogy works. We know something the puddle doesn’t.”

    Irrelevant, if the puddle doesn’t know his shape is dependent on the shape of its hole then its a stupid puddle.

    -“jazzcat: For, on cosmological fine tuning, the many parameters are not credibly driven by any superlaw that forces the values
    -Z: And you know this how exactly?”

    That was from Kairosfocus @118 but that’s OK. I’ll let him answer that if he wants.

    -“jazzcat: Still NOT a lock/key relationship that performs a function INDEPENDENT of their fit.
    -Z:The independence is between the hole and the puddle; just like the claim that the universe has to have a certain shape to contain you.”

    I’ve already argued that is incorrect. There is dependence between the hole and the puddle, you keep ignoring this fact. It doesn’t matter if the puddle doesn’t know it. If I were the puddle I could reasonably conclude that my shape IS dependent by studying myself (jazzpuddle) and my universe (my hole).

    -“jazzcat: How do you know?
    -Z:We start with the evidence for branching descent; the nested hierarchy and the fossil succession.”

    Maybe you misunderstood my question. I didn’t ask how your reasoning for evolution.

    Your reasoning is that since the puddle in the hole somehow cannot know its hole is finely tuned (designed) for its existence this means humans somehow cannot know that the universe is finely tuned (designed) to allow humans to live.
    We would argue that the puddle CAN know and SHOULD know whether or not. Transferring KNOWN human designs (locks/keys for function) to puddle analogies follows that since the “design” cannot know if it was designed (or exists out of necessity) then KNOWN human designs ARE NOT REALLY DESIGNED. Do you see the contradiction now?? This means that we cannot even determine if a HUMAN design is designed.

    If you respond to this comment at all please respond to at least these questions:

    1)How do you INFER your house doorlock/key were designed for a purpose and NOT through wholly natural processes? 2)If your housekey staggeringly fits well into the doorlock and it cannot know if its shape is dependent or independent of the lock (just like the puddle analogy) does this logically conclude that your housekey and door lock are NOT finely tuned for a purpose or NOT designed?

  137. 137
    Zachriel says:

    jazzcat: There is dependence between the hole and the puddle, you keep ignoring this fact.

    We’re not ignoring it. It’s key to understanding the analogy. The puddle is not aware of the dependent relationship. We are. The puddle reasons from what he knows, the hole fits staggeringly well. Because we see the underlying symmetry, we realize the puddle is making a fallacious argument. Specified complexity is not sufficient to reach a conclusion of design.

    jazzcat: If I were the puddle I could reasonably conclude that my shape IS dependent by studying myself (jazzpuddle) and my universe (my hole).

    Jazzpuddle: The staggeringly exact fit is clear evidence of design.
    Z-volution group: There may be some underlying process or symmetry that explains the fit.
    Jazzpuddle: You have no evidence of that.
    Z-volution group: It’s just a conjecture at this point.
    Jazzpuddle: Design!

    jazzcat: Your reasoning is that since the puddle in the hole somehow cannot know its hole is finely tuned (designed) for its existence

    The puddle does know the hole is finely tuned. It just doesn’t know why.

    jazzcat: this means humans somehow cannot know that the universe is finely tuned (designed) to allow humans to live.

    Similarly for IDers. They do see the universe as “finely tuned” but ignore that there may be an underlying symmetry, or that there may be a process that conforms life to fit the hole.

    jazzcat: We would argue that the puddle CAN know and SHOULD know whether or not.

    There’s no such observation available to the puddle. It has only the one example to consider and no way to vary the parameters.

    jazzcat: Transferring KNOWN human designs (locks/keys for function) to puddle analogies follows that since the “design” cannot know if it was designed (or exists out of necessity) then KNOWN human designs ARE NOT REALLY DESIGNED.

    We have evidence that keys and locks are designed. We have evidence of the designer, the how and why they make locks.

    jazzcat: 1)How do you INFER your house doorlock/key were designed for a purpose and NOT through wholly natural processes?

    The usual way, motive, opportunity, and means; that is, by tracing the causality from the artisan to the art to the artifact.

    jazzcat: 2)If your housekey staggeringly fits well into the doorlock and it cannot know if its shape is dependent or independent of the lock (just like the puddle analogy) does this logically conclude that your housekey and door lock are NOT finely tuned for a purpose or NOT designed?

    No, just like with the puddle, it means the conclusion is unsupported and premature. It requires evidence beyond mere specified complexity to distinguish the cases.

  138. 138
    Zachriel says:

    kairosfocus: For, on cosmological fine tuning, the many parameters are not credibly driven by any superlaw that forces the values

    And you know this how exactly?

  139. 139
    Joe says:

    They do see the universe as “finely tuned” but ignore that there may be an underlying symmetry, or that there may be a process that conforms life to fit the hole.

    And you know this how, exactly?

    Specified complexity is not sufficient to reach a conclusion of design.

    And you know this how, exactly?

    Every time we have observed specified complexity and knew the cause it has always been via intelligent agency- ALWAYS. No one has ever observed nature, operating freely produce specified complexity- Never happened.

    So, according to scientific methodology, when we observe specified complexity and don’t know the cause we can safely scientifically infer there was an intelligent agency involved.

    BTW humans dig holes and fill them with water. In that case your puddle would be right.

Leave a Reply