Fine tuning: Size of Earth

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 10, 2014

Fine tuning, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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

Comments

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?Zachriel_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

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.Silver Asiatic_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

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.jazzcat_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

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.Zachriel_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

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 ?Me_Think_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

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.jazzcat_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

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.Me_Think_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

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.jazzcat_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

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/product/9780199919758.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/Irreducible-Mind-Toward-Psychology-Century/dp/1442202068bornagain77_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

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?jazzcat_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

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).Me_Think_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

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.jazzcat_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

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.Zachriel_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Every physical thing can be said to fit its space "staggeringly well". That's supposed to convince somebody of something?Silver Asiatic_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

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.Silver Asiatic_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

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.chris haynes_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

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!"Zachriel_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

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?jazzcat_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

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.Joe_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

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.jazzcat_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

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.Zachriel_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

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".Zachriel_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

I know who started it, MT. You and your ilk still use it as a serious argument. That is because you are desperate losers.Joe_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

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.jazzcat_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

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.Joe_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Joe, The puddle argument is a satire popularized by Douglas Adams. I don't know how others use it.Me_Think_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Me Think- evos don't use the argument as a satire. So the question is "why do evos take satire so seriously?"Joe_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

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.Zachriel_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

Joe @ 75 I don't know why IDers take satire so seriously :-)Me_Think_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

Me_Think @ 77 ????????? Your entire position is a satire and evos use the puddle argument as a real/ literal argument.Joe_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply