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?
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?
Aren’t we reading rather more into coincidences than is warranted?
Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune also have solar eclipses.
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
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.
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?”
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,,
,,,, 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”
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
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.,,,”
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.’
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.” ”
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.
Querius/3
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……..
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.
We don’t know that earth is the only planet with conditions favourable to life.
Jerry@7, this is an excellent example of Douglas Adams’ puddle and hole story.
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
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.
Of related note:
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+
“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
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.
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.
Welcome to those who support ID.
You may not realized what you just did. But you just made the argument for ID.
“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
The anthropic principle seems more like a philosophical dodge for FT then anything else
Asauber/10
So should Emily Post’s Etiquette………..
CD @19,
Would you like to join us for afternoon tea? 😉
Andrew
semi off topic: Just uploaded yesterday
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.
Ba77,
No need for more Darwinism. Just ID.
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.
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.
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
SG at 26,
You have no argument – at all. Just a bit of rabble-rousing.
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
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…
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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 ……….
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 ……….”
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.
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
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.
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
James Tour?
Alan Fox @42,
Just click the link in 41 and watch the video.
-Q
But James Tour is not a biologist, WRT biology, he 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.
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.
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?
Alan Fox @44
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
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.
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
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
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?
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/
It does tickle me how KF implies ignorance on my part by asking questions he himself cannot answer.
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
52
Alan Fox @52,
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
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