Latest extraterrestrial life theory suggests a habitable planet does not need a moon

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 14, 2011

Extraterrestrial life, Intelligent Design, News}

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

In “Aliens don’t need a moon like ours” (New Scientist, 13 November 2011), David Shiga informs us,

It seems planets don’t need a big satellite like Earth’s in order to support life, increasing the number on which life could exist.

We know of only one such planet and it does have a moon …

But a study now suggests moonless planets have been dismissed unfairly. “There could be a lot more habitable worlds out there,” says Jack Lissauer of NASA’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, who led the research.

Large moons are not required for a stable tilt and climate, agrees Darren Williams of Pennsylvania State University in Erie. In some circumstances, he adds, large moons can even be detrimental, depending on the arrangement of planets in a given system. “Every system is going to be different.”

It’s probably rude to point this out, but just now, only one system is genuinely different when it comes to harbouring life. And it does have a moon.

You’d think it would make more sense to look for what we know works.

Comments

OT: Darwin on Trial 20th Anniversary: Darwinian Evolution's "Wrecking Ball" - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-11-14T12_20_49-08_00bornagain77_{November 14, 2011
November
11
Nov
14
14
2011
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

As well as 'Rotation, rotation, rotation', 'orbit, orbit, orbit, is found to be extremely finely-tuned. i.e. our solar system is not nearly as haphazardly arranged as materialists/atheists would think prior to investigation:
Thank God for Jupiter - July 2010 Excerpt: The July 16, 1994 and July 19, 2009 collision events on Jupiter demonstrate just how crucial a role the planet plays in protecting life on Earth. Without Jupiter’s gravitational shield our planet would be pummeled by frequent life-exterminating events. Yet Jupiter by itself is not an adequate shield. The best protection is achieved via a specific arrangement of several gas giant planets. The most massive gas giant must be nearest to the life support planet and the second most massive gas giant the next nearest, followed by smaller, more distant gas giants. Together Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune provide Earth with this ideal shield. http://www.reasons.org/thank-god-jupiter Of Gaps, Fine-Tuning and Newton’s Solar System - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011 Excerpt: The new results indicate that the solar system could become unstable if diminutive Mercury, the inner most planet, enters into a dance with Jupiter, the fifth planet from the Sun and the largest of all. The resulting upheaval could leave several planets in rubble, including our own. Using Newton’s model of gravity, the chances of such a catastrophe were estimated to be greater than 50/50 over the next 5 billion years. But interestingly, accounting for Albert Einstein’s minor adjustments (according to his theory of relativity), reduces the chances to just 1%. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/of-gaps-fine-tuning-and-newtons-solar.html Milankovitch Cycle Design - Hugh Ross - August 2011 Excerpt: In all three cases, Waltham proved that the actual Earth/Moon/solar system manifests unusually low Milankovitch levels and frequencies compared to similar alternative systems. ,,, Waltham concluded, “It therefore appears that there has been anthropic selection for slow Milankovitch cycles.” That is, it appears Earth was purposely designed with slow, low-level Milankovitch cycles so as to allow humans to exist and thrive. http://www.reasons.org/milankovitch-cycle-design Astrobiology research is revealing the high specificity and interdependence of the local parameters required for a habitable environment. These two features of the universe make it unlikely that environments significantly different from ours will be as habitable. At the same time, physicists and cosmologists have discovered that a change in a global parameter can have multiple local effects. Therefore, the high specificity and interdependence of local tuning and the multiple effects of global tuning together make it unlikely that our tiny island of habitability is part of an archipelago. Our universe is a small target indeed. Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez - P. 625, The Nature of Nature
As well, the generally accepted theory of moon formation by a gigantic impact is not nearly as well established as most people believe:
Researchers discover water on the moon is widespread, similar to Earth's - July 2010 Excerpt: The finding of volatiles on the moon has deep implications for how it, and the Earth, formed. It is generally believed that the moon was created when the early Earth was hit by a Mars-sized proto-planet called Theia, melting and vaporizing itself and a large chunk of the Earth. The cloud of particles created by the impact later congealed to form the moon, which supposedly was devoid of highly volatile elements such as hydrogen and chlorine. However, the researchers' discovery of these volatiles challenges this theory. "If water in the Moon was residue water kept during the giant impact, it is surprising that water survived the impact at all because less volatile elements, such as sodium and potassium, are strongly depleted. The details of the impact theory need to be re-examined," Liu said. http://www.physorg.com/news198934028.html
Seeing the extremely hypothetical nature of the moon/impact formation theory, and the complete lack of any rigorous evidence substantiating it, I guess I can be guilty of the "God did it!" explanation in this instance:
Genesis 1:16-17 God made two great lights--the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set these lights in the sky to light the earth,
music:
Sara Groves - You Are The Sun - Music Video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3993951
bornagain77_{November 14, 2011
November
11
Nov
14
14
2011
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Rotation, rotation, rotation- the impactor that created the earth-moon system is said to have kick-started our rotation. How would moon-less terrestrial planets get their rotation? No rotation no magnetic field, and no need to worry about any wobble. Also are they talking about microbes or metazoans?Joseph_{November 14, 2011
November
11
Nov
14
14
2011
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Well obviously the hypothetical 'moonless' planet would lose the moon's 'Observability Correlation',,,
Privileged Planet - Observability Correlation - Gonzalez and Richards - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5424431 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
As well, the earth would lose necessary 'tidal effects',,, In fact I suspect the authors may have inadvertently overlooked the following considerations for interdependence,,,
Among Darwin Advocates, Premature Celebration over Abundance of Habitable Planets - September 2011 Excerpt: Today, such processes as planet formation details, tidal forces, plate tectonics, magnetic field evolution, and planet-planet, planet-comet, and planet-asteroid gravitational interactions are found to be relevant to habitability.,,, What's more, not only are more requirements for habitability being discovered, but they are often found to be interdependent, forming a (irreducibly) complex "web." This means that if a planetary system is found not to satisfy one of the habitability requirements, it may not be possible to compensate for this deficit by adjusting a different parameter in the system. - Guillermo Gonzalez http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/among_darwin_advocates_prematu050871.html
A few more notes:
We Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History - Hugh Ross - video http://vimeo.com/31940671 Dr. Hugh Ross, and his team, have now drastically refined this probability of 1 in 10^304 to a staggering probability of 1 in 10^1054: Does the Probability for ETI = 1? Excerpt; On the Reasons To Believe website we document that the probability a randomly selected planet would possess all the characteristics intelligent life requires is less than 10^-304. A recent update that will be published with my next book, Hidden Purposes: Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, puts that probability at 10^-1054. http://www.reasons.org/does-probability-eti-1 Linked from "Appendix C" in Why the Universe Is the Way It Is Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ? 10^-1333 dependency factors estimate ? 10^324 longevity requirements estimate ? 10^45 Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ? 10^-1054 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe ? 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/compendium/compendium_part3.pdf Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere (10^-1054) - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236
bornagain77_{November 14, 2011
November
11
Nov
14
14
2011
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply