Was Jupiter designed for terrestrial human existence?

_{David L. Hagen

July 21, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Descriptions of this week’s massive impact into Jupiter makes an interesting point on human existence relative to Jupiter: All Eyepieces on Jupiter After a Big Impact By DENNIS OVERBYE, New York Times July 21, 2009

Anybody get the number of that truck?

Astronomers were scrambling to get big telescopes turned to Jupiter on Tuesday to observe the remains of what looks like the biggest smashup in the solar system since fragments of the Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 crashed into the planet in July 1994.

Something — probably a small comet — smacked into Jupiter on Sunday, leaving a bruise the size of the Pacific Ocean near its south pole. Just after midnight, Australian time, on Sunday, Jupiter came into view in the eyepiece of Anthony Wesley, an amateur astronomer in Murrumbateman. The planet was bearing a black eye spookily similar to the ones left in 1994.

“This was a big event,” said Leigh Fletcher of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “In the inner solar system it would have been a disaster.”

“As far as we can see it looks very much like what happened 15 years ago,” said Brian Marsden of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who is director emeritus of the International Astronomical Union’s Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams. The bureau issues bulletins about breaking astronomical news. . . .
Dr. Marchis said the shape of the debris splash as revealed in the Keck images suggested that whatever hit Jupiter might have been pulled apart by tidal forces from the planet’s huge gravity before it hit. In an e-mail message, he said humans should be thankful for Jupiter.

“The solar system would have been a very dangerous place if we did not have Jupiter,” he wrote. “We should thank our giant planet for suffering for us. Its strong gravitational field is acting like a shield protecting us from comets coming from the outer part of the solar system.”

So we owe our survival to Jupiter’s size and location! What are the probabilities of a Jupiter being situated outside the orbit of an Earth sized planet?

Comments

Spark, "Do you intend to suggest that the result contains FSCI?" LOL - no. BTW - the answer is "A divine foot in the door." Bad, I know. 90DegreeAngel, "If Jupiter is designed that means that gas clouds, atoms, ice, and molecules are designed which means that detecting design would be impossible because you would never see a difference between nondesign and design" That's like saying that if a computer is designed then all of the raw material was also designed. Not a good argument, but nice try.CannuckianYankee_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

James Bond, actually I believe that black holes are now inferred to be in all galaxies of sufficient size, it should not be that hard for you to look up. As well, though I don't know for sure, I believe Dr. Ross is referring to catastrophic changes in weather patterns brought about by severe el ninos: excerpt: There is also evidence for strong El Niño events during the early Holocene epoch 10,000 years ago.[4] El Niño affected pre-Columbian Incas [5] and may have led to the demise of the Moche and other pre-Columbian Peruvian cultures.[6] A recent study suggests that a strong El-Niño effect between 1789-93 caused poor crop yields in Europe, which in turn helped touch off the French Revolution.[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation i.e. Not only is complex life dependent on the rainfall, complex life is dependent on rainfall to remain relatively stable. i.e. the ecosystem demands a relatively stable balance for higher life. Remember complex life is far more fragile to maintain for long term duration than bacterial life. Thus the reference to severe el ninos is reasonable on Ross's part. In fact, contrary to your position, I think he is being far, far too generous with some of the probabilities. many symbiotic geochemical relationships that are extremely delicate in balance could be illustrates The Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Cycle - video http://videos.howstuffworks.com/hsw/7942-abiotic-factors-the-oxygen-carbon-dioxide-cycle-video.htm As well I could go into excruciating detail of terra-forming for the earth: excerpt: Interestingly, while the photo-synthetic bacteria were reducing greenhouse gases and producing oxygen, and metal, which would be of benefit to modern man, "sulfate-reducing" bacteria were also producing their own natural resources which would be very useful to modern man. Sulfate-reducing bacteria helped prepare the earth for advanced life by detoxifying the primeval earth and oceans of poisonous levels of heavy metals while depositing them as relatively inert metal ores. Metal ores which are very useful for modern man as well as fairly easy for man to extract today (mercury, cadmium, zinc, cobalt, arsenic, chromate, tellurium and copper to name a few). To this day, sulfate-reducing bacteria maintain an essential minimal level of these heavy metals in the ecosystem which are high enough so as to be available to the biological systems of the higher life forms that need them yet low enough so as not to be poisonous to those very same higher life forms. (Ross: Creation As Science) Bacterial Heavy Metal Detoxification and Resistance Systems: excerpt: Bacterial plasmids contain genetic determinants for resistance systems for Hg2+ (and organomercurials), Cd2+, AsO2, AsO43-, CrO4 2-, TeO3 2-, Cu2+, Ag+, Co2+, Pb2+, and other metals of environmental concern. http://www.springerlink.com/content/u1t281704577v8t3/ http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/26/m026p203.pdf The role of bacteria in hydrogeochemistry, metal cycling and ore deposit formation: Textures of sulfide minerals formed by SRB (sulfate-reducing bacteria) during bioremediation (most notably pyrite and sphalerite) have textures reminiscent of those in certain sediment-hosted ores, supporting the concept that SRB may have been directly involved in forming ore minerals. http://www.goldschmidt2009.org/abstracts/finalPDFs/A1161.pdf Transitional Metals And Cytochrome C oxidase - Michael Denton - Nature's Destiny http://books.google.com/books?id=CdYpDRY0Z6oC&pg=PA203&lpg The Concentration of Metals for Humanity's Benefit: Excerpt: They demonstrated that hydrothermal fluid flow could enrich the concentration of metals like zinc, lead, and copper by at least a factor of a thousand. They also showed that ore deposits formed by hydrothermal fluid flows at or above these concentration levels exist throughout Earth's crust. The necessary just-right precipitation conditions needed to yield such high concentrations demand extraordinary fine-tuning. That such ore deposits are common in Earth's crust strongly suggests supernatural design. http://www.reasons.org/TheConcentrationofMetalsforHumanitysBenefit etc..etc..etc.. The point being James Bond is that if you press your case the odds will only get worse for you.bornagain77_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

@bornagain77 That's great bornagain, but the PDF you linked only lists about 120 of the factors, and doesn't list the examples I mentioned above. I'd still love to know how tidal heating from neighbouring dwarf galaxies has a bearing on habitability. If you have a copy of his book maybe you can give a brief outline. I don't presume to know nearly as much as Dr Ross must, but I do claim to be able to recognise in this case that there are some factors which he has assigned probabilities to on an entirely arbitrary basis. Case in point: "Distance to nearest black hole - 0.2" He's asserting that there's an 80% chance that the location in which a system forms in the galaxy will be too close to a blackhole for life to be sustained? Given that we only have about 15 candidates for non-Supermassive black holes to look at so far, and that outside of the Schwarzchild radius the gravity profile of a blackhole is similar to that of the star it formed from, I find this to be a very bold assertion, and looking over the titles of his references I can't immediately see any papers that would discuss such a claim. (I checked the abstract of the only paper with a title mentioning "black holes" without mentioning "supermassive", but it too was about supermassive black holes). It may look like I'm nit-picking at some of the more nebulous (no pun intended) parameters, but it's intended to show that there are serious problems with the estimate.JamesBond_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

Photons, electrons, protons, neutrons, molecules, proteins, DNA, living creatures, planets, stars, galaxies, you name it. Everything was designed. This is true even if it evolved (changed) after creation. Evolution, too, was designed. The only exception is the spiritual side of the universe. Spirits just are and they don't evolve. Spirits are necessary because matter cannot create itself. That which is created cannot create and that which creates cannot be created. They are opposites.Mapou_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

Yes it is a bit long LOL ..I bet it is a typo that should read 100 million years. As well I was just thinking that there is a trend that tends towards ID of the life enabling parameters. i.e. it seems with every discovery and refinement of knowledge the probabilities always grow worse as we learn more. It seems the materialist appeal to chaos is always shrinking and is not reversible once we establish a point. Thus the odds will always become worse for the materialist the more we learn. The almost seems to be a rigid rule of knowledge that can be rigidly respected as to what we can expect from future discoveries to trend towards.bornagain77_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

if too small: orbits of all inner planets will become unstable in less than 100,000,000 million years. You can take that one off the list. The orbits of the inner planets will become unstable anyway, since they will be inside the Sun as it goes into the red giant phase long before 100,000,000 million years will pass.Nakashima_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

James Bond states: It doesn’t make any sense to say that he’s been “conservative” with his estimates of probability here, because we don’t know enough about literally half of these parameters to even guess within an order of magnitude what the probability of them being within the “life-forming/sustaining” range is," Do you claim to know all knowledge the knowledge Dr. Ross does so as to be able to claim Dr. Ross does not know these things? You should rightly check that to say that YOU don't know enough about the parameters! But of course most evolutionists claim they know far more than they actually do. I don't say this to be mean to you but just to illustrate a point that no man knows everything. I do agree with your objection as to the references not being numbered though, and I cite this following site so as to bring more clarity for you. It gives the reasons for the parameters. As well if you dig around on amazon I am sure you can find a book Dr. Ross has written on the subject. Fine-Tuning of Physical Life Support Body http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC2W0304RFT.pdf excerpt from article: Jupiter distance if greater: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth. if less: Earth’s orbit would become unstable. Jupiter mass if greater: Earth’s orbit would become unstable. if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth. drift in major planet distances if greater: Earth’s orbit would become unstable. if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth. major planet eccentricities if greater: orbit of life supportable planet would be pulled out of life support zone. major planet orbital instabilities if greater: orbit of life supportable planet would be pulled out of life support zone. mass of Neptune if too small: not enough Kuiper Belt Objects (asteroids beyond Neptune) would be scattered out of the solar system. if too large: chaotic resonances among the gas giant planets would occur. Kuiper Belt of asteroids (beyond Neptune) if not massive enough: Neptune’s orbit remains too eccentric which destabilizes the orbits of other solar system planets. if too massive: too many chaotic resonances and collisions would occur in the solar system. separation distances among inner terrestrial planets if too small: orbits of all inner planets will become unstable in less than 100,000,000 million years. if too large: orbits of the most distant from star inner planets will become chaotic.bornagain77_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Following up on my comment #22, Ross writes this:
quantity of anaerobic nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the early oceans 0.01
SURE seems to me that he is trying to calculate the probability of life as it is, rather than life existing at all. Otherwise, I suppose the probability of life existing at some stage on Earth (and that's just in the "right" quantity) is, at least according to Ross, 0.01. Not bad odds, really.Hoki_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

DHL, CannuckianYankee Any evidence for multiverse other than an aversion to improbable events? None at all. I was being facitious.CannuckianYankee_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 provides some references to Ross’ methodology.
I didn't really see any methodology myself. For example, how does Ross justify his range for various elements in the crust or various atmospheric conditions? If life only existed in the oceans, that would potentially be totally irrelevant. Actually, it seems to me like most of Ross' items are only relevant if we want to calculate any probability that life would be similar to what it actually is, not for the probability of life actually existing at all.Hoki_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

@bornagain77: It doesn't make any sense to say that he's been "conservative" with his estimates of probability here, because we don't know enough about literally half of these parameters to even guess within an order of magnitude what the probability of them being within the "life-forming/sustaining" range is, let alone what that range itself is for many of them. 10% chance of a terrestrial planet forming in the presence of 2+ gas giants? Where's he getting this from when we have such little information about the make-up of systems outside of our own? I'd love to check his sources, but he seems to have had an unfortunate accident and simply regurgitated some gigantic list of references at the bottom of the page, without actually pointing out which references support which assertions with citations. I'm not going to waste my time going through 258 links to determine what is in support of what. If you want to find which references support the idea that "Tidal heating from neighbouring galaxies", "Triggering of El Nino events by volcanic explosions", and "Density of dwarf galaxies near home galaxy" are critical to the survival of life then I shall gratefully doff my hat to you sir and read them with gusto and diligence. Why has he even bothered to number the references if he hasn't tied them in with the text above?JamesBond_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

DLH:
50:50 has as much evidence behind it as a game of “Pitch and Toss”.
You have just rejected the critical assumption on which Marks and Dembski's arguments hinge. According to their work, all non-uniform probability distributions turn out to be uniform if you factor in higher-order causes in the causal chain.R0b_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

And yet James Bond, though you cannot fathom the necessity of these parameters and find them "hilarious"; Remove any mentioned parameter and life becomes impossible....Thus since the parameters are indeed necessary for life, then it is reasonable, following in Frank drake's footsteps, to assign a conservative probability to the parameter. He is very generous and even gives some probabilities up to .7 for them happening. seeing as his work is backed up with peer review I guess we can dig through his papers and let you come to your own conclusion. Incredulity won't cut it in this case though. Probability For Life On Earth - Michael Strauss - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zfOaXQh2SEbornagain77_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

JamesBond - the fact that the "natural" system is inherently likely to result in life-favorable outcomes such as the formation of Jupiter is only further evidence that this "natural" system is in fact the product of intelligence.Hedge_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

Seems to me that current models for the formation of a solar system from a protoplanetary disk seem to suggest that rocky, inner planets and outer gas giants are fairly likely to occur - at least for stars similar to our sun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System#Formation_of_planets That list of 322 factors "required" for life to arise is more than a little hilarious. Tidal heating from neighbouring galaxies? Triggering of El Nino events by volcanic explosions? Density of dwarf galaxies near home galaxy? Quite apart from the patently ridiculous ones, and the audacity of assigning exact probabilities to stuff we can't even begin to estimate, there's a whole load on there which may affect what kind of life would arise, but wouldn't necessarily affect whether or not life arises.JamesBond_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

What do you guys say to the claim that Jupiter actually increases the chances of a comet hitting the earth? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12532-jupiter-increases-risk-of-comet-strike-on-earth.htmlmofi_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

I guess I'm confused about design detection. Let's us presume that the placement of Jupiter is designed. How did the designer get it there? Option 1) Using the natural forces and laws found in nature and described by materialistic science . . . this option then has no use for the Intelligent Designer. Option 2) Jupiter was created and made by an intelligent designer and placed in that area of our solar system. If Jupiter was created by said Intelligent Designer then the material it is made out and the way it is put together (just like DNA) should show signs of CSI or FCSI . . . However, people on this site are always showing how their is a difference between say a rock and DNA. This confuses me.90DegreeAngel_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

90DegreeAngel,
Doesn’t this invalidate all of Dembski’s work on detecting design?
Uh... nope! Just the opposite. I'd say it shows that everything was designed. Designed things were designed to be guided by the laws of nature, which were themselves also designed. In my opinion, in one very real sense, there really is no validity in the idea of "nature"---at least not in the way that it's often thought of. As for design detection, however, there is a method to differentiate between what "nature designs", and what intelligent beings design. So, whether you agree with my opinion above or not, there is still a scientifically valid method for design detection, and therefore for the intelligent design theory.Brent_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

If Jupiter is designed that means that gas clouds, atoms, ice, and molecules are designed which means that detecting design would be impossible because you would never see a difference between nondesign and design Doesn't this invalidate all of Dembski's work on detecting design?90DegreeAngel_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

Nakashima and KRiS_Censored As Nakashima noted: "Yes, I rose to that level of probabilistic sophistication!" 50:50 has as much evidence behind it as a game of "Pitch and Toss". bornagain77 provides some references to Ross' methodology. Nakashima summarizes well the challenge in this post: “For an Earth size planet in the habitable zone of its star, what are the probabilities of gas giant further out?” Any evidence relating to that question? CannuckianYankee Any evidence for multiverse other than an aversion to improbable events?DLH_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Good point. If things weren't like they are, we wouldn't be here to notice it. It's sort of like Adam's proverbial puddle.Anthony09_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

Kris, Dr. Ross's estimates are extremely conservative. As well his calculation is in fact a refinement of the Drake equation. As Recent research has revealed, a majority of Gas giants are found to orbit extremely close to stars, and to have highly elliptic orbits, both conditions of which drive the probability lower. As well, Richards and Gonzalez, point out the "suspicious" fact that habitability correlates to observability. Privileged Planet Principle - Ability To Support Life Equals Ability To Discover http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhamthuG1z4bornagain77_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

Mr KRiS, Yes, I rose to that level of probabilistic sophistication! ;) A more interesting question would be "For an Earth size planet in the habitable zone of its star, what are the probabilities of gas giant further out?"Nakashima_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

Incidentally, one can only assume that Nakashima is using what I call the LHC calculation. I call it this because it's the calculation used by the guy that is suing to have the LHC shut down because it might destroy the earth. In an interview on The Daily Show he was asked what the probability was of global destruction via black hole, and his answer was (I'm paraphrasing here) "Well, it could happen or it could not happen, therefore the probability is 50%."KRiS_Censored_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT}

I love probability and statistics, in part because it's so counter-intuitive. Unfortunately it's rather easy to exploit people's intuitions and arrive at wildly inaccurate probabilities using numbers that our intuition tells us are quite accurate. In the end I think that Nakashima's estimate @1 is probably about as accurate as Hugh Ross'.KRiS_Censored_{July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT}

If so, would Dr. Dembski agree?sparc_{July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee
What do you get when you combine an obese John waters film actor/actress with a door-to-door salesman?
Do you intend to suggest that the result contains FSCI?sparc_{July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

BA77, Those are astronomical odds. I guess the multiverse begins to look more probable here. Off-topic [sort-of] Q: What do you get when you combine an obese John waters film actor/actress with a door-to-door salesman? [hint: like fine-tuning, it's something Darwinists cannot allow] :)CannuckianYankee_{July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

Excerpt: there are a total of 322 known parameters which have to be met for complex life to be possible on Earth, or on a planet like Earth. Individually, these limits are not that impressive but when we realize ALL these limits have to be met at the same time and not one of them can be out of limits for any extended period of time, then the condition becomes "irreducibly complex" and the probability for a world which can host advanced life in this universe becomes very extraordinary. Here is the final summary of Dr. Hugh Ross's "conservative" estimate for the probability of another life-hosting world in this universe. Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters =10^388 Dependency factors estimate =10^96 Longevity requirements estimate =10^14 Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters = 10^304 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in universe =10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^282 (million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.bornagain77_{July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

Here are a few (322) more "Privileged Planet" parameters besides Jupiter: Probability For Life On Earth - List of Parameters, References, and Math - Hugh Ross http://www.reasons.org/probability-life-earth-apr-2004 As well, Another "protective shield" has recently come to light: The Protective Boundaries of our Solar System - NASA IBEX - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O0qcQZXpII As well the habitable zone for the earth is "shrinking" upon refinement of known parameters: New Definition Could Further Limit Habitable Zones Around Distant Suns: - June 2009 ... liquid water is essential for life, but a planet also must have plate tectonics to pull excess carbon from its atmosphere and confine it in rocks to prevent runaway greenhouse warming. Tectonics, or the movement of the plates that make up a planet's surface, typically is driven by radioactive decay in the planet's core, but a star's gravity can cause tides in the planet, which creates more energy to drive plate tectonics.... Barnes added, "The bottom line is that tidal forcing is an important factor that we are going to have to consider when looking for habitable planets." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610124831.htmbornagain77_{July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply