Fine tuning Fine-timing Intelligent Design Solar system habitability

At Evolution News: Fine-Timing as Evidence of Intelligence Design

Spread the love

David Coppedge raises an important point about “timing,” in addition to “tuning”:

Often in movies a scene depicts some highly improbable event on which the plot pivots (see some example below). Viewers suspend disbelief for the sake of entertainment while knowing that the coincidences are matters of contrivance by screenwriters. In real life, though, how many coincidences would it take to convince a reasonable person that something non-random is going on? 

eclipse
Image credit: vancarlosfr, via Pixabay.

I’ve witnessed two total solar eclipses so far, in 1991 and in 2017 (another is coming to America in 2024). I concur with Guillermo Gonzalez that a total eclipse “summons all the senses” and becomes one of the most emotional celestial events one can experience. Many have noted the remarkable coincidence between apparent sizes of the moon and sun from Earth that make perfect total eclipses possible. Moreover, the size of the sun and the moon are intimately tied to the habitability of the Earth. As a G2 main sequence star, our sun’s size and temperature determines the radius of the habitable zone where liquid water can exist. And the moon plays vital roles in governing the ocean tides and stabilizing Earth’s tilt. In The Privileged Planet, co-authored by Jay Richards, Gonzalez noted that “the requirements for complex life on a terrestrial planet strongly overlap the requirements for observing total solar eclipses” (p. 7). As they further argue, these requirements also overlap with the ability to do scientific discovery.

A Gondola on Saturn

Gonzalez calculated all possible instances of eclipses between bodies in the solar system, 64 in all. On page 11 of The Privileged Planet he included a graph of the results: the only other possible eclipsing body the right size to produce perfect eclipses is Saturn’s tiny moon Prometheus. If one were to be riding a gondola in Saturn’s cloud tops at the right position, one might get a half second total eclipse as Prometheus crossed the sun. On Earth, by contrast, the duration of totality can last up to 7.5 minutes. 

But don’t forget “the rest of the story” about Prometheus. Gonzalez notes that its “highly elongated shape compromises the view of the chromosphere” (p. 10). Sure enough, when the Cassini mission, on which I worked at JPL, took photos of Prometheus, its irregular potato-like shape was revealed in detail. Prometheus would never, therefore, be able to cover the sun exactly. That leaves Earth alone as the only place in the solar system where a perfect total eclipse can occur. In the Privileged Planet documentary, Gonzalez remarked, “the one place that has observers is the one place that has the best eclipses.”

Getting the Right Moon at the Right Time

But there’s another aspect of this “coincidence” not often discussed: the moon is slowly moving away from the Earth at 3.8 cm per year (The Conversation). Over time, the moon would be too far away to exactly cover the sun’s disk. After that, all eclipses would be annular. Simultaneously, Gonzalez points out, the sun’s diameter is increasing. “These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth” (p. 18). But consider too that eclipses will become progressively shorter long before that deadline, and therefore less useful for scientific discovery. On the other hand, if we can extrapolate the recession speed far into the past, the moon would have appeared too big to produce some of the special effects that eclipse watchers and scientists love, like Bailey’s beads, the flash spectrum, and the “diamond ring” effect. We can witness perfect solar eclipses, Gonzalez concludes, during a “fairly narrow window of Earth’s history, including the present” (p. 9).

The narrow window for perfect solar eclipses leads us to consider the matter of timing as evidence of design. Where else are coincidences of timing discernable?

57 Replies to “At Evolution News: Fine-Timing as Evidence of Intelligence Design

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Aren’t we reading rather more into coincidences than is warranted?

  2. 2
    Sir Giles says:

    Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune also have solar eclipses.

  3. 3
    Querius says:

    Sir Giles @2,

    But why not Mars?
    https://mars.nasa.gov/news/9172/nasas-perseverance-rover-captures-video-of-solar-eclipse-on-mars/

    And in how many of these planets’ solar eclipses does a moon exactly match the apparent size of the sun (minus Bailey’s beads)?

    Seversky, here’s a book on just how many coincidences there are:
    https://www.amazon.com/Privileged-Planet-Cosmos-Designed-Discovery/dp/0895260654

    Conclusion: The earth is in a “Goldilocks” zone enabling maximum discoverability for astronomy.

    -Q

  4. 4
    Sir Giles says:

    Querius: And in how many of these planets’ solar eclipses does a moon exactly match the apparent size of the sun

    I don’t know. But how many planets have a ring system as spectacular as Saturn’s? Or how many are tidally couple to the sun like Mercury? How many planets have an axial tilt as great as Uranus?

    Every planet is unique in many ways.

    Earth has life. The fact that earth has conditions that are favourable for the life we find on earth is inevitable, it is not evidence of design.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    SG: “The fact that earth has conditions that are favourable for the life we find on earth is inevitable, it is not evidence of design.”

    And exactly how, on atheism, was it ‘inevitable’ that the earth alone should uniquely be found to have conditions favorable for life?

    As Eric Metaxas, (in “the most popular article in Wall Street Journal history”), asked, “At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces?”

    Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God – March 25, 2015
    Excerpt: The op-ed, “Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God,” was published in the Wall Street Journal on December 25, 2014. Since then, the article has garnered over 600,000 Facebook shares and more than 9,250 comments, making it, unofficially, the most popular article in Wall Street Journal history.,,,
    As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.
    Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkelwrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”
    As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.
    Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.
    Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?
    https://ericmetaxas.com/media/articles/science-increasingly-makes-case-god/

    Directly contrary to what SG implied, there are many independent, ‘uninevitable’, characteristics required to be fulfilled for any planet to be able to host advanced carbon-based life in this universe. I know of, at least, four books that have been written on this subject, ‘The Privileged Planet’ by Guillermo Gonzalez, ‘Rare Earth’ by Donald Brownlee, “Lucky Planet” by David Waltham, and ‘Improbable Planet’ by Hugh Ross,,

    The Privileged Planet – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmIc42oRjm8

    “If some god-like being could be given the opportunity to plan a sequence of events with the expressed goal of duplicating our ‘Garden of Eden’, that power would face a formidable task. With the best of intentions but limited by natural laws and materials it is unlikely that Earth could ever be truly replicated. Too many processes in its formation involve sheer luck. Earth-like planets could certainly be made, but each would differ in critical ways. This is well illustrated by the fantastic variety of planets and satellites (moons) that formed in our solar system. They all started with similar building materials, but the final products are vastly different from each other . . . . The physical events that led to the formation and evolution of the physical Earth required an intricate set of nearly irreproducible circumstances.”?
    = Peter B. Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe (New York: Copernicus, 2000)?

    “Earth is a precious jewel possessing a rare combination of qualities that happen to make it almost perfect for sustaining life. Lucky Planet investigates the idea that good fortune, infrequently repeated elsewhere in the Universe, played a significant role in allowing the long-term life-friendliness of our home and that it is unlikely we will succeed in finding similarly complex life elsewhere in the Universe.”
    London astrobiologist – David Waltham, Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional — and What That Means for Life in the Universe (Basic Books, 2014), p. 1.)

    Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home – Hugh Ross – September 6, 2016
    Description: Most of us remember the basics from science classes about how Earth came to be the only known planet that sustains complex life. But what most people don’t know is that the more thoroughly researchers investigate the history of our planet, the more astonishing the story of our existence becomes. The number and complexity of the astronomical, geological, chemical, and biological features recognized as essential to human existence have expanded explosively within the past decade. An understanding of what is required to make possible a large human population and advanced civilizations has raised profound questions about life, our purpose, and our destiny. Are we really just the result of innumerable coincidences? Or is there a more reasonable explanation?
    This fascinating book helps nonscientists understand the countless miracles that undergird the exquisitely fine-tuned planet we call home–as if Someone had us in mind all along.
    https://www.amazon.com/Improbable-Planet-Earth-Became-Humanitys/dp/0801016894

    ,,,, All four books indicate that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to host advanced life in this universe.

    As Dr. Hugh Ross noted, “less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracle”

    Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross’s book, ‘Why the Universe Is the Way It Is’;? Probability Estimates for the Features Required by Various Life Forms:
    Excerpt:
    Requirements to sustain intelligent physical life:
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1333
    dependency factors estimate approx. 10^-324
    longevity requirements estimate approx. 10^45
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1054
    Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. 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 miracle
    http://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfron.....3_ver2.pdf

    For comparison sake, the entire universe itself is estimated to only have 10^80 particles in it. Thus the probability of a planet ‘accidentally’ meeting all the conditions that are necessary to host intelligent life is far less likely than that of finding any particular sub-atomic particle in the universe by accident.

    Moroever, the probability against ‘simple’ life spontaneously appearing on any life supporting planet makes the 1 in 10^1032 estimate for any planet to be able to support intelligent life look like child’s play.

    Working from the thermodynamic perspective, Harold Morowitz, of Yale University, found that the probability of life spontaneously forming, under “ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment)”, would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000

    DID LIFE START BY CHANCE?
    Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Harold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916 (also of note: 1 with 100 billion zeros following would fill approx. 20,000 encyclopedias)
    http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/chance.html
    Of related note: Harold Joseph Morowitz was an American biophysicist who studied the application of thermodynamics to living systems. Author of numerous books and articles, his work includes technical monographs as well as essays. The origin of life was his primary research interest for more than fifty years.

    Moreover, besides ‘simple’ life, intelligent life itself is also hardly ‘inevitable’.

    The atheistic belief that human like intelligence is, basically, ‘inevitable’ on any planet that is capable of hosting life is simply a false assumption on their part. After all, out of millions of species on earth, only humans themselves have demonstrated themselves to be capable of complex, abstract, i.e. intelligent, thought.

    Leading Darwinists themselves have honestly admitted that they have “essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,”

    Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014
    Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,
    (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).)
    Casey Luskin added: “It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92141.html

    Moreover, Barrow and Tippler, in their book “The Anthropic Cosmological Principle”, estimated that there were 16 steps that were necessary during the course of human evolution. They calculated that ‘the probability of all 16 steps occurring to be less than one chance in 10^24,000,000.’

    16 Steps to Generating Advanced Life | Dr Hugh Ross – July 13, 2017
    Excerpt: Naturalists, materialists, deists, and most theistic evolutionists would answer that the chemicals on early Earth spontaneously self-assembled into a simple cell that was able to reproduce. From there, the cell’s daughters evolved to produce all the life-forms that have ever existed throughout the past 3.8 billion years. Such a history requires that life make at least 16 transitional steps in order to generate advanced life-forms.,,,
    ,,, Evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala notes that, from a Darwinian perspective, each step is highly improbable. Taking into account just a few of these steps, Ayala determined that the probability of intelligent life arising from bacteria to be less than one chance in 10^1,000,000.(1)
    Physicists John Barrow, Brandon Carter, and Frank Tipler calculated the probability of all 16 steps occurring to be less than one chance in 10^24,000,000.(2) To get a feel for how miniscule this probability is, it is roughly equivalent to someone winning the California lottery 3,000,000 consecutive times where that individual purchases just one lottery ticket each time. Realistically, this probability is indistinguishable from someone winning the California lottery 3,000,000 consecutive times where the individual purchases no tickets at all.
    https://bcooper.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/16-steps-to-generating-advanced-life-dr-hugh-ross/

    William Lane Craig, after reviewing Barrow and Tipler’s book, stated, “They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God.” ”

    “In Barrow and Tippler’s book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, they list ten steps necessary in the course of human evolution, each of which, is so improbable that if left to happen by chance alone, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have incinerated the earth. They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God.”
    – William Lane Craig – If Human Evolution Did Occur It Was A Miracle – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUxm8dXLRpA

    Thus, directly contrary to what SG claimed, there is nothing whatsoever that is ‘inevitable’ for the existence of a planet that is capable of hosting life in this universe, nor is there anything ‘inevitable’ that ‘simple’ life should even exist on a planet that is capable of hosting life, much less is it ‘inevitable’ that intelligent life in particular should ever exist on a planet that is capable of hosting life.

    The only thing that is truly ‘inevitable’ in all of this is the fact that Atheists, such as SG, will ‘inevitably’ say, (apparently without any thought whatsoever), the dumbest things just so as to avoid any inference to God. Dumb things that don’t withstand even cursory examination.

    Job 38:1-6
    Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
    Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
    Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
    Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
    Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
    Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

  6. 6
    chuckdarwin says:

    Querius/3

    Conclusion: The earth is in a “Goldilocks” zone enabling maximum discoverability for astronomy.

    If the Intelligent Designer really wanted to enable humans for maximum discoverability for astronomy, he would have given us zoom lenses for eyes and made the atmosphere completely transparent……..

  7. 7
    jerry says:

    Earth has life. The fact that earth has conditions that are favourable for the life we find on earth is inevitable, it is not evidence of design.

    It most certainly is evidence of design.

    This is argument by asserting nonsense. It’s not one or two but hundreds maybe thousands of independent unique conditions. One or two may be inevitable. But thousands?

    One of the ones I like is mass and size. Because of Earth’s mass, liquid water remains on earth but water vapor disperses into atmosphere with obvious benefits. Toxic gases such as ammonia and methane disperse harmlessly into upper atmosphere. Molecular weights: methane – 16; ammonia – 17; water – 18.

    If Earth’s mass is a little less or a little more, this would not happen.

    Aside: Asserting that Earth is in a discovering zone is meaningless. While true, there are probably billions of planets that fit this criteria.

    Aside2: we are so used to reading science fiction that has worlds made to seem ordinary while just the opposite is true. If they treated other worlds with truth, there would be no stories.

  8. 8
    Sir Giles says:

    BA77: And exactly how, on atheism, was it ‘inevitable’ that the earth alone should uniquely be found to have conditions favorable for life?

    We don’t know that earth is the only planet with conditions favourable to life.

  9. 9
    Sir Giles says:

    Jerry@7, this is an excellent example of Douglas Adams’ puddle and hole story.

  10. 10
    asauber says:

    Jerry,

    FYI, Just got back home from a recent trip to Mexico, where I had time to finish The Miracle of Man by Michael Denton (while sipping Tequila and eating prickly pear). That book should be required reading before just anyone can comment here.

    Andrew

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    SG, so your answer to my question of your claim that “The fact that earth has conditions that are favourable for the life we find on earth is inevitable, it is not evidence of design” is to say that “We don’t know that earth is the only planet with conditions favourable to life.”

    You do realize that those two statements contradict each other do you not? You cannot on the one hand claim that it is “inevitable’ that earth would be favorable for life and, on the other hand, honestly admit that we don’t know if any other planet in the universe has conditions favourable to life. That is equivalent to you saying that you don’t know exactly why the earth in particular has conditions that are favorable to life. i.e. Directly contrary to what you claimed, you certainly don’t know that it was ‘inevitable’ that the earth in particular would have conditions favorable to life if you can’t even be certain that any of the other planets in the universe will have conditions favorable to life of not.

    The law of non-contradiction is one of the three fundamental laws of logic, and is stated thus:
    A statement cannot be true and false.
    A statement can either be false, or it can be true: there is nothing between. If a statement does not accurately reflect reality, then it is false. If it accurately reflects reality, then it is true: but either way, it is reality that is the benchmark for our statements.
    Without this fundamental law of logic, all thought breaks down. If a statement can be simultaneously true and false, then rationality itself is an empty concept.
    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-law-of-non-contradiction-and-what-are-some-good-examples-of-it

    Of related note:

    In other words, the “tiny temperature variations” in the CMBR, and the largest scale structures in the universe, both reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, a reason), that specifically included the earth and solar system from the creation of the universe. ,,, The earth and solar system, from what our best science can now tell us, is not some random cosmic fluke, and/or random quantum fluctuation, as atheists had presupposed in their ad hoc inflation model that sought to ‘explain away’ the fine-tuning of the flatness and homogeneity of the universe.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ethan-siegel-the-multiverse-and-another-you-are-all-but-inevitable/#comment-738557

    Genesis 1:1
    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    Isaiah 45:18
    “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.”

  12. 12
    jerry says:

    this is an excellent example of Douglas Adams’ puddle and hole story.

    How to not answer the obvious.

    Make up nonsense. Anti ID commenters answer evidence and logic with stupidity. As I said, they classify themselves fairly quickly.

    Aside: this argument is an admission that Earth is unique in universe and is the only planet suitable for life. Welcome to ID.

    Aside2: now given that Earth is the only planet in universe suitable for life, how did life arise on this unique planet and leave no forensic evidence of how it arose? How did complex life emerge on this unique planet and leave no forensic evidence. Or, it must be inevitable.

    Are we going to get a puddle argument. Does a puddle argument supplant science in your world?

    That’s why

        ID is science+

  13. 13
    asauber says:

    “the life we find on earth is inevitable”

    Yeah, this isn’t even an argument. You can just say everything that happens is inevitable. Not scientific, that’s for sure.

    Andrew

  14. 14
    jerry says:

    It’s possible to create conditions/systems very different from Earth.

    Then, we could look at what is inevitable in that system. I’m sure nearly every scientist on the planet would say that each such system is prohibitive for life of any form, not just DNA based life. In other words, there are an infinite number of holes the puddle cannot fit into.

    Aside: Under the inevitable or puddle argument, some form of life should have originated on every world. After all it’s just a different shaped puddle. But the puddle argument is actually based on the only hole that can be filled in our universe is the little hole in our world.

    Aside2: if we find another planet just like Earth, is that an argument for design given the uniqueness of Earth? Is that equivalent to the dealer dealing himself two royal spade flushes in a row at the poker table?

    Aside3: the puddle argument fails because it compares water to life. One is an extremely simple system, H2O. The other is the most complicated system in the known universe.

  15. 15
    Sir Giles says:

    Jerry@14, I am not saying that conditions favourable for life make life inevitable. I am saying that if life exists, it is inevitable that the conditions are favourable for life.

  16. 16
    jerry says:

    I am saying that if life exists, it is inevitable that the conditions are favourable for life

    Welcome to those who support ID.

    You may not realized what you just did. But you just made the argument for ID.

  17. 17
    asauber says:

    “the conditions are favourable for life”

    SG,

    You should investigate some of the details of this. The Miracle of Man by Michael Denton is a great place to start. The universe is pre-configured for us, specifically.

    Andrew

  18. 18
    AaronS1978 says:

    The anthropic principle seems more like a philosophical dodge for FT then anything else

  19. 19
    chuckdarwin says:

    Asauber/10
    So should Emily Post’s Etiquette………..

  20. 20
    asauber says:

    CD @19,

    Would you like to join us for afternoon tea? 😉

    Andrew

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    semi off topic: Just uploaded yesterday

    Does Darwinian Theory Need to be Replaced? A (top-ten) Chemist and Oxford Mathematician discuss Neo-Darwinism
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_ad3Qrkyn8

  22. 22
    hnorman42 says:

    SG @9
    Back on April 25th of 2021, we had a post about the puddle argument. I argued that a puddle fitting its hole is a tautology. A puddle cannot even be defined apart from its hole. You can’t use an event with probability of 1 (a sure thing) as a model for events where huge odds are surmounted.

    Other people pointed out the mechanical necessity of a puddle filling its hole.

    Interestingly, a conversation developed where some argued against the validity of Adams’ puddle argument – whereas others argued not for it – but against whether Adams had intended it to be about fine-tuning at all.

    As far as I can see, there was no serious defense of Adams’ argument from any quarter.

  23. 23
    relatd says:

    Ba77,

    No need for more Darwinism. Just ID.

  24. 24
    Sir Giles says:

    hnorman42: Back on April 25th of 2021, we had a post about the puddle argument. I argued that a puddle fitting its hole is a tautology. A puddle cannot even be defined apart from its hole. You can’t use an event with probability of 1 (a sure thing) as a model for events where huge odds are surmounted.

    I would agree. As is the case with life and the conditions that support life. It is exactly analogous to the puddle and the hole. If a puddle exists there is a 100% certainty that the conditions necessary for the existence of a puddle also exist. Just as if life exists there is a 100% certainty that the conditions necessary for life also exist. If you accept that the conditions supporting life were finely tuned/designed then you have to accept Adams’ story that the hole was designed for the puddle.

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    SG: it is ‘inevitable’ that earth would have conditions that are favorable to life.

    ID proponent: How do you know that it is ‘inevitable’ that the earth should have conditions favorable for life?

    SG: well life exists on earth so the conditions that allow life to exist on earth must be ‘inevitable’.

    ID proponent: I don’t think you know what the word ‘inevitable” actually means.

    in·ev·i·ta·ble
    adjective: inevitable
    certain to happen; unavoidable.
    “war was inevitable”
    Similar:
    unavoidable
    inescapable
    bound to happen
    sure to happen
    inexorable
    unpreventable
    assured
    certain
    for sure
    sure
    fated
    predestined
    predetermined
    preordained
    ineluctable
    necessary
    compulsory
    required
    obligatory
    mandatory
    prescribed
    ineludible
    noun: inevitable
    a situation that is unavoidable.
    “by the morning he had accepted the inevitable”

  26. 26
    Sir Giles says:

    BA77, yes if life exists, the conditions necessary for life are unavoidable, necessary, compulsory, required, obligatory, mandatory, a situation that is unavoidable.

    If your only argument is my use of the word “inevitable”, then you have no argument worth listening to

  27. 27
    relatd says:

    SG at 26,

    You have no argument – at all. Just a bit of rabble-rousing.

  28. 28
    asauber says:

    The sad part is that SG’s (and Sev’s) entire worldview prolly rests on a pseudo-clever turn of phrase about puddles that has nothing to do with examining any scientific information.

    Andrew

  29. 29
    relatd says:

    Andrew at 28,

    Like a magician, the goal is misdirection. Distracting the average reader from the actual science to get them to focus on nonsense instead – like puddles. Because, apparently, that’s their job.

    Take Seversky. His “act,” for lack of a better term, is to rant against God, or, if the subject is the fine-tuning of the universe, to find some fault, like, ‘because XYZ is not to my liking – I would have done things differently – then there is no such thing as “fine tuning” or good/beneficial fine tuning.’ See, see, he says, I – yes, I – just toppled your fine tuning argument. With gibberish…

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    SG: “if life exists, the conditions necessary for life are unavoidable, necessary, compulsory, required, obligatory, mandatory, a situation that is unavoidable.”

    But alas, as billions upon billions of lifeless planets testify, the conditions that allow life to exist on any given planet are not “unavoidable, necessary, compulsory, required, obligatory, mandatory,” The preconditions that allow for life on earth may very well have been otherwise. The preconditions for life on earth are definitely not ‘unavoidable’. The question is “why are the preconditions that are favorable for life unique to earth alone and to none of the other billions upon billions of other lifeless planets?”. Falsely claiming that the preconditions for life on earth are ‘unavoidable’ does nothing to answer that burning question and reveals that you have not really understood the question.

    Rare Solar System Gets Rarer | Hugh Ross – 2018
    https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/rare-solar-system-gets-rarer

    Life Requires Galactic and Supergalactic Habitable Zones – 2019
    https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/life-requires-galactic-and-supergalactic-habitable-zones

  31. 31
    relatd says:

    Ba77,

    We have actually looked at few other planets. It may be that Mars or the moon, Europa may have some type of primitive life, but that is unknown. However, I was watching a TV program where some scientists confidently claimed that if a planet, outside of our solar system, was the right distance from its sun and had water and the “building blocks of life,” – amino acids – that life would appear there. At first, I accepted this idea. Later, after further thought, I realized that no scientists had any proof for this AND they were describing a magic trick, not science. But, NASA and other groups are spending money on this unproven fiction and expect to “find” life which, apparently, “appears” like living flies in dirty clothing.

  32. 32
    Querius says:

    It’s amazing at all the uninformed blah blah we get from people unfamiliar with astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez’s evidence for the earth being in a “Goldilocks” zone.

    For example, this evidence includes a limited range of orbital distances from the sun and the distance of the sun away from the galactic core. There are enough of these parameters to fill a book.

    But apparently opinions and noise, no matter how vacuous, are far more important to air than any discussion based on observed facts. Humans have more than enough intelligence to make their own tools such as “telescopes,” going far beyond what’s needed simply to survive.

    -Q

  33. 33
    Querius says:

    Relatd @31,
    One would think that spontaneous generation was finally put to rest by Louis Pasteur’s experiments.

    But no. Von Helmont’s recipe for mice and the popular belief of maggots spontaneously evolving from rotting meat are still supported–only the recipe has changed.

    What’s now thought to be needed is a “dirty” earth, lightning, a can of Campbell’s primordial soup, and millions of years (according to some researchers, as few as 130 million years).

    -Q

  34. 34
    kairosfocus says:

    SG, life on earth is a going concern, and as a going concern, supportive required conditions for life were met at cosmic, galactic, solar system and planetary levels. A huge array, actually, which can be shown to be at a very narrow operating point in a very large configuration space as say Barnes has aptly plotted. What is happening is you have conflated after the fact highly contingent outcomes – –

    * e.g. earth needs not have existed (and needs not have been habitable, contrast Mercury, Venus, the Moon, even granting for argument Mars and gas giant moons may have been habitable),
    * our sol system and galaxy need not have existed (most galaxies are not spirals or barred spirals with galactic habitable zones),
    * the laws and parameters of the cosmos as Leslie highlighted, come from a very narrow, multiply convergent zone from the abstract space of possibilities

    — with a priori necessity. This is a confusion of order of being between contingent and necessary being. In fact it is the puddle blunder writ large: the water fits the hole by mechanical necessity; stretching to give some traction, a super law forcing such parameters as listed to go to supportive points, would be itself supremely fine tuned. And yes, as predicted, you have no cogent response to what is on the table from Hoyle et al forward. KF

  35. 35
    relatd says:

    Querius at 33,

    Yes, well, the problem is trust. If experts say that this or that is likely to happen on other planets then some people give it no further thought. At least one Mars probe was able to scoop up a small amount of Martian soil into a special chamber for analysis. As I recall, the results were inconclusive.

    But Mars is very cold, its gravity is less than Earth’s and its atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide. Hardly a place suitable for life. But water ice is available just below the surface in some areas, and one report states that liquid water is available about a mile underground. Until another probe detects microbes, for example, there is no evidence for life.

  36. 36
    chuckdarwin says:

    BA77/21
    So, I watched the (thankfully short) video you posted with Tour and Lennox. John “The Leprechaun” Lenox is staggered by this and staggard by that and just generally staggered all over the place. I wonder if these Discovery Insitute mavens ever get sick of jawing at each other about the same things over and over and over and over and over ……….

  37. 37
    relatd says:

    CD at 36,

    I wonder if the evolution promoters here “… ever get sick of jawing at each other about the same things over and over and over and over and over ……….”

  38. 38
    hnorman42 says:

    SG –
    I think that some confusion arises over the term “inevitable”. It is correct to say that if life exists then the conclusion is inevitable that the conditions for life exist. It does not mean that the process by which the conditions arose is inevitable.

  39. 39
    Querius says:

    Relatd @35,

    Apparently, certain terrestrial extremophiles can survive on Mars:
    https://bigthink.com/hard-science/mars-rock/

    So, after 4.5 billion years of evolution, some scientists believe life on Mars must have been inevitable, but simply hasn’t been absolutely confirmed yet.

    I guess we’re now supposed to assume it happened.

    -Q

  40. 40
    relatd says:

    Querius at 39,

    Well the only life Mars might see in the near future is astronauts. It may – may – happen that a landing party will deploy a covered greenhouse, drill for liquid water and start growing plants in this heated greenhouse. It is not clear if the liquid water will be suitable for drinking. Its mineral content will have to be analyzed along with screening for any viruses or microbes. Since there is little sun, an artificial light source will be needed to simulate ‘normal’ day and night conditions. The carbon dioxide atmosphere will be split in an atmosphere converter and then the oxygen will be liquefied and pumped back into the lander. How this will be accomplished in the lower gravity and Martian atmospheric pressure is unknown. They will have to simulate this on Earth at a smaller scale by using a pressure chamber that can also simulate lower gravity. Otherwise, there is the possibility of a leak. Not a good thing.

  41. 41
    kairosfocus says:

    CD, again trying to make clever dismissive quips without considering reasoning. There are substantial reasons starting with OOL, see Tour Here at UD, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-rice-u-dr-tour-exposes-the-false-science-behind-origin-of-life-research/ I notice, you and other objectors have been notably absent in the face of his specific comments on the topic and fatal flaws in research on it. Here Dr Tour suggests 500 years for synthesis of life de novo. KF

  42. 42
  43. 43
    Querius says:

    Alan Fox @42,

    James Tour?

    Just click the link in 41 and watch the video.

    -Q

  44. 44
    Alan Fox says:

    But James Tour is not a biologist, WRT biology, he has no professional expertise or experience.

  45. 45
    jerry says:

    has no professional expertise or experience

    Lawyers and judges do it all the time to 12 novices.

    We listed all the biologists who explain the ins and outs of biology and ID.

    Besides, Tour is a chemist and wouldn’t chemists be the primary experts. Biologists are only relevant for the after effects.

    Aside: have no idea what video says. But we must thank anti ID people for more GIGO.

  46. 46
    Alan Fox says:

    Besides, Tour is a chemist and wouldn’t chemists be the primary experts.

    He’s a synthetic chemist and specialises in nanotechnology. Seems to be the leading expert on graphenes. Not much to do with biochemistry or biology.

  47. 47
    Alan Fox says:

    We listed all the biologists who explain the ins and outs of biology and ID.

    Back in the days when ID and anti-ID was more popular, one site I use to follow had Jerry down as a deep-cover ID skeptic.

    Who’s “we”, Jerry? And does the list still exist?

  48. 48
    Querius says:

    Alan Fox @44

    But James Tour is not a biologist, WRT biology, he has no professional expertise or experience.

    Just click the link below and watch the video.
    https://youtu.be/v36_v4hsB-Y

    Anything else you post simply emphasizes your ignorance regarding OOL research.

    -Q

  49. 49
    Seversky says:

    If you are interested in a critique of Tour’s claims, you could watch one of Professor Dave’s videos

    But that’s only if you are interested from a scientific perspective.

  50. 50
    Querius says:

    Seversky @49,

    Or you could watch Dr. Tour’s rebuttal that destroys “Professor” Dave’s assertions.
    https://youtu.be/v36_v4hsB-Y?t=139

    Dr. Tour is a real professor at a real university and has over 750 peer-reviewed research publications, over 130 granted patents, and is widely cited (h Index = 165).
    https://www.jmtour.com/about/

    But that’s only if you are interested from a scientific perspective.

    -Q

  51. 51
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, the evasion and trying to pull rank game again. You full well know you are NOT dealing with biology but with proposed darwin pond or the like scenarios for origin of life. You are dealing here with a leading organic chemist whose business is synthesis of sophisticated molecules and he is criticising the synthesis approach being used in OOL research and is pointing out how it is misdirected and misleading based on flawed methods. For cause. If you have a substantial objection, give it rather than pretending he does not have relevant knowledge and expertise. Meanwhile we yet again are led to conclude that you are implying by what you evade that you cannot answer the substantial points on the merits. KF

    PS, here is in effect a mini course https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71dqAFUb-v0&list=PLILWudw_84t2THBvJZFyuLA0qvxwrIBDr

  52. 52
    Alan Fox says:

    Anything else you post simply emphasizes your ignorance regarding OOL research.

    James Tour is not doing any “Origin of Life” research, nor has he ever done. How is it he should be regarded as some guru on the subject?

  53. 53
    Alan Fox says:

    …you evade that you cannot answer the substantial points on the merits.

    Research on the origin of life requires a second data point. I’m resigned to waiting (if I’m spared) ten years for solid data from Mars. The Webb telescope may find something unexpected. Or we humans are unique; the only Intelligent life in the part of the universe we can know about.

    Currently, with humans as a single data point, we can only speculate.

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....ata-point/

  54. 54
    Alan Fox says:

    It does tickle me how KF implies ignorance on my part by asking questions he himself cannot answer.

  55. 55
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, pretzel strawman games again. And even the introductory video would show that as an organic, synthesis chemist he is critiquing the syntheses used in ool research, for cause. KF

  56. 56
    Querius says:

    52
    Alan Fox @52,

    James Tour is not doing any “Origin of Life” research, nor has he ever done. How is it he should be regarded as some guru on the subject?

    Apparently you’re not aware that Dr. Tour is a synthetic organic chemist of note, intimately understanding what’s required to create complex organic molecules. As a result of wildly speculative ideas on OOL, he has issued challenges to OOL researchers.

    Why don’t you watch this video to become familiar with the problems OOL researchers face:
    https://youtu.be/v36_v4hsB-Y?t=139

    -Q

  57. 57
    Querius says:

    Alan Fox,

    While it seems you’re deeply enmeshed in other threads, the answer to your assertions against Dr. Tour are addressed by the video link above.

    I think the presentation would disabuse you of your mistaken notions regarding OOL research.

    -Q

Leave a Reply