Originally posted by twhiteheadThe champion of Quantum Tunneling has revized his ideas to admit that the laws of physics seem to be "THE PRODUCT OF EXCEEDINGLY INGENIOUS DESIGN" (my emphasis)
[b]You misunderstand what scientists are saying. Its rather like the way Newtonian physics 'doesn't apply' at near light speeds and Einstein's relativity 'doesn't apply' at very small scales. Quantum mechanics might not apply very close to a singularity.
That doesn't mean that there are no laws. It simply means that our model of the laws cannot be used in t have solved it by inventing an entity for which the problem is not a problem.[/B]
For your contemplation a quote from Dr. Huge Ross's (The Creator and the Cosmos, Hugh Ross, Phd. Navepress) on Paul Davies author of God and the New Physics in which Davies proposed theories about "Quantum Tunneling"
[b]"Davies deserves credit for ongoing reconsiderations and revisions of his position. In the book published in 1984 (Superforce), he argued that the laws of physics "seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design"
[Paul Davies, Superforce:The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, New York, Simon and Shuster, 1984, page 243]
'In a more recent book (The Cosmic Blueprint, 1988) he posed this question:'
"If new organizational levels just pop into existence for no reason, why do we see such an orderly progression in the universe from featuresless origin to rich diversity?"
[Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint:New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability to Order the Universe , New York, Simon and Schuster, 1988, page 141)
' He [Davies] concluded that we have "powerful evidence that there is 'something going on' behind it all."
[The Cosmic Blueprint, pg. 203]
'Davies seems to be moving forward to some form of theism.'
Originally posted by jaywillOur sun is just the right age to support life.
[b]=======================================
Assuming there was a “caused” for the laws of physics (not everything has a cause! for example, according to quantum mechanics, there are random events at the subatomic level and any particular outcome of those events has no “cause&rdquo😉 , ========================================
The new particle smashe
I will be back to discuss this further. Right now I have to provide some transpertation.[/b]
It was “the right age to support life” billions of years ago much earlier in the suns cycle else there wouldn’t have been life billions of years age (we know about that from microfossils that have been scientifically dated by more than one method)! Think about that! Given the fact the sun STILL continues to support life since, it logically follows that there is no “just the right age “ for the sun to be to support life.
Our distance from the sun is just the right distance to support life.
Actually it has been scientifically calculated that if it was about 10% nearer or further away, life (including human life) could still exist on Earth. There are several planets in our solar system and all of them different distances from the sun so there is no big coincidence that one of them is within the ‘inhabitable zone’. If some other planet fell within this inhabitable zone when the solar system was first formed and not the Earth, say, mars, then we will could have come to exist on mars and will all be asking each other “isn’t it a huge coincidence that mars is about the right distance from the sun to support us and life?”
Our rotation rate is just the right rotation rate to support life.
Nop. Unless the rotation is very slow (that would cause some serious problems) the rotation could be a lot faster (almost doesn’t mater how fast as long as it doesn’t cause the planet to fly apart!) or moderately slower and life would simply evolve and adapt to that day and night cycle length. Most planets in our solar system have a reasonable rotation for life but don’t support life because of other conditions. For example mars has a day length almost the same as that of the Earth’s!
The shape of our galaxy is just the right shape for a planet like ours to have formed.
You mean it is a spiral galaxy as that is all that is required to increase the probability of a planet like ours forming! There are many spiral galaxies and all of them can form planets like our own. So, there is no huge coincidence our galaxy is a spiral one nor that our planet is in a spiral galaxy.
Even the size of the other planets in the solar system, like Jupiter and Saturn directly effect the possibility of life being sustained on earth.
You mean they are “large”! -because that is all that is required for them to protect us from excessive meteor impacts! Recently many large planets have been discovered around other solar systems so many solar systems (possibly most) have large planets. So it is no huge coincidence ours contains some large planets.
Sorry! Not a single one of your examples stands up to scientific scrutiny! I think you and all other theists should study science and make sure you really understand it before trying to give “scientific” justification to your religious arguments. I am just curious, have you ever done any science courses (that isn’t sarcasm -I honestly wonder!) and if so what sort of science did you study? 🙂
============================
Our sun is just the right age to support life.
It was “the right age to support life” billions of years ago much earlier in the suns cycle else there wouldn’t have been life billions of years age (we know about that from microfossils that have been scientifically dated by more than one method)! Think about that! Given the fact the sun STILL continues to support life since than, it logically follows that there is no “just the right age “ for the sun to be to support life.
===================================
A scientist's response:
Atmosphere Problem
"Chyba, Sagan, and others cling to another slim chance. They suggest that the atmosphere conditions 3.8 billion years ago might not have been too unfavorable for life. Perhaps conditions were just neutral. Unfavorable in the context of life assembly is an "oxidizing" atmosphere, one in which atoms and molecules bond with oxygen atoms. Favorable would be a "reducing" atmosphere, one in which atoms and molecules bond with hydrogen rather than with oxigen atoms. Neutral, as Chyba and Sagan define it, would be an atmosphere that allows at least some hydrogen bonding. But this idea, too, reflects wishful thinking. Atmospheric physicists established more than five years ago that Earth's atmosphere has been fully oxidizing (enough free oxigen exists to oxidize organic compounds) for at least the last four billion years.
Under oxidizing conditions, processes producing amino acids (protien building blocks) and nucleotides (DNA and RNA building blocks) operate 30 million times less efficiently than they would under reducing conditions. Natural primordial soups would contain far too few prebiotic molecules to overcome this inefficiency, not to mention the destructuve chemical processes. Worse yet, the minute amino acids production would almost entirely be composed of the simple acid, glycine. The more complex acids that are also needed would be virtually missing."
[The Creator and the Cosmos, Hugh Ross, Phd. Navepress, pg. 149]
===================================
The shape of our galaxy is just the right shape for a planet like ours to have formed.
You mean it is a spiral galaxy as that is all that is required to increase the probability of a planet like ours forming! There are many spiral galaxies and all of them can form planets like our own.
=======================================
Could you name for us those planets like the Earth in these galaxies?
===========================================
So, there is no huge coincidence our galaxy is a spiral one nor that our planet is in a spiral galaxy.
=============================
If the galaxy was too elliptical star formation would cease before sufficient heavy element build up for life chemistry could occur.
If the galaxy were too irregular radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe and heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available.
====================================
The shape of our galaxy is just the right shape for a planet like ours to have formed.
You mean it is a spiral galaxy as that is all that is required to increase the probability of a planet like ours forming! There are many spiral galaxies and all of them can form planets like our own. So, there is no huge coincidence our galaxy is a spiral one nor that our planet is in a spiral galaxy.
===================================
Actually only 5% of the galaxies in the known universe are spirals. The other 95% are irregular or elliptical.
Physicists R.E. Davies and R.H. Koch published a paper on the needed cosmic conditions for the solar system to contain the elements essential for life. Since the 1960s scientists have realized that a life supporting solar system would need contact with exploding supernovae remains to possess the right amount of heavy elements for ricky planet formation and life chemistry.
Davies and Koch estimated how many of these supernova stars would need to erupt in our galaxy to produce the needed quantity of elements heavier than helium. The calculated that one super nova every three years from the time the Milky Way galaxy originated (about 10 billion years ago). Since the present rate of supernova explosions in our galaxy are less than one every fifty years, the rate must have been very high in the galaxy's early history.
This is just the right galaxy to have allowed an earth like planet to emerge that could support life. It is not only needed that the rate of supernova explosions be more abundant in the early ages of the galaxy but that they be lower in rate presently. It there were more supernova explosions in the Milky Way in this era the radiation eruptions would frequently exterminate life on Earth.
The frequency of supernova explosions (per unit of volume) is dependent strongly on location. The solar system must not only be in the proper shaped and aged galaxy but also in the right part of the spiral arm. The distance from the center of the galaxy must be right.
Another life essential heavy element is fluorine which is not made in supernovae. It is made in sufficient quantities in a rare object known as a white dwarf stars bound into binary relationships with larger stellar companions. In this binary structure including a white dwarf flourine is made.
The larger star must orbit close enough to the white dwarf to lose significant amounts of material to the companion. Some of the material is converted to fluorine in the transfer on the surface of the white dwarf.
To make a long discussion shorter, the location, types, rates, and timings of white dwarf events and supernova events severely contrains the possibility of finding many life support types of galaxies/ The vast majority of galaxies are eleminated. So we do indeed have our location by special coincidence in the right kind of galaxy.
I take this as part of the fine tuning of the universe around the Divine purpose of life and man as center of God's purpose.
Originally posted by jaywillA bunch of ants discussing whats happening on the piece of land over the road .... . 😀
====================================
The shape of our galaxy is just the right shape for a planet like ours to have formed.
You mean it is a spiral galaxy as that is all that is required to increase the probability of a planet like ours forming! There are many spiral galaxies and all of them can form planets like our own. So, there is no huge co uning of the universe around the Divine purpose of life and man as center of God's purpose.
Originally posted by jaywillActually only 5% of the galaxies in the known universe are spirals. The other 95% are irregular or elliptical….
====================================
The shape of our galaxy is just the right shape for a planet like ours to have formed.
You mean it is a spiral galaxy as that is all that is required to increase the probability of a planet like ours forming! There are many spiral galaxies and all of them can form planets like our own. So, there is no huge co e tuning of the universe around the Divine purpose of life and man as center of God's purpose.
Actually, although I didn’t get round to explaining this point last time, it wouldn’t make any difference to the argument if only about ~0% of the galaxies where capable of having planets capable of supporting life!
The implicit assumption you are making here is that if conditions capable of supporting life only exist in an extremely minute proportion of the places in the universe then that would mean it would be just too much of an astonishing coincidence that life and humans exist here in this part of the universe which is the very few places in the universe that life could exist and therefore you assume that some kind of divine intervention is required to explain why conditions are just right for us here -in other words, the reason why conditions are just right here is that a “god” made it so for us.
The fundamental logical flaw with this argument is that it obviously cannot be a big coincidence that life started and thrived wherever conditions in the universe supports the creation and support for such life! -no mater how rare those conditions are in the universe!
After all, if life does get started and then thrive somewhere in a universe where the right conditions for life to get started and then thrive is extremely rare in that universe, where is that life most likely to get started and then thrive? Would it be where conditions are not right to allow it? -of course not! -that would be logically impossible! Therefore, logic dictates that life will get started and thrive where conditions are right to allow that! So it would be NO coincidence at all that where any life exists in that universe, that’s one of the extremely rare places in that universe that conditions are right to support life!
You may ask
“well, why are conditions for life perfect here? -I mean, assuming the extreme rarity of the right conditions for life in our universe, isn’t it an amazing coincidence that those right conditions just happen to exist on Earth?”
Now suppose the right conditions didn’t exist on Earth; then we wouldn’t exist here on Earth because conditions here wouldn‘t allow it. But, then we would not exist here on Earth to ask ourselves
“isn’t it an amazing coincidence that those right conditions just happen to exist on Earth?”!! and if we had come to exist on some other planet in the universe (other than planet Earth) where conditions allow us to exist -lets call this planet planetX, then we would be asking ourselves:
“well, why are conditions for life perfect here? -I mean, assuming the extreme rarity of the right conditions for life in our universe, isn’t it an amazing coincidence that those right conditions just happen to exist on PlanetX?”
and similarly if we happened not to exist on this planetX but, say, a planet called planetY, we could ask the same sort of question etc and ask the same sort of question no mater which planet we happened to come to exist on.
-but the logical flaw with all these questions is that if we come to exist on any one planet, it must be a planet with conditions that allow us to exist! -And therefore there would be NO coincidence at all that conditions for both life and us are right for life in our neighbourhood!
“NO coincidence” means “NO divine intervention required to explain the coincidence”
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI think the essence of your comment is that we really have no basis to believe that a mighty coincidence has taken place.
[b]Actually only 5% of the galaxies in the known universe are spirals. The other 95% are irregular or elliptical….
Actually, although I didn’t get round to explaining this point last time, it wouldn’t make any difference to the argument if only about ~0% of the galaxies where capable of having planets capable of supporting life!
The implic ...[text shortened]... b]“NO coincidence” [/b]means “NO divine intervention required to explain the coincidence”[/b]
Well, a mighty coincidence is not the only reason I believe in God but it is a reason.
You have a "No Basis for Surprise at the Coincidence" argument. But I doubt that you transfer that attitude to your everyday life.
If you came home this evening to your home locked, with someone else's name on the mail box, and met some other person who calmly claimed that he was the Owner, I doubt that you would shrug it off as there really being no basis for surprise.
Or if you discovred that you won the Pawerball lottery not once but three or four times in one year, I don't think you'd shrug it off with "Well, SOMEONE had to win it. What's the coincidence ??"
I think you are going a long way to assure yourself that the Creator of the universe simply could not be God, especially the God of the Christian Bible. Ever since the emergence of the Big Bang theory and a definite beginning to the universe atheists have been mighty agitated to avoid having to concede a ultimate cause.
Theories of infinite numbers of universes and perpetual Steady State universes are often desperate attempts to avoid an Ultimate Initiator.
One more thing. Quantum Tunneling says that elements may pop into existence from nowhere given that they also pop OUT of existence in a very short time. So if the universe poped into existence according to Quantum Tunneling then it should have poped out of existence billions of years ago in the micro secords in which alleged Qauntum Tunneling caused it to pop into existence.
We are STILL HERE.
Originally posted by jaywillI can name one. Zamomorph 5. Its in star Group 45HE in galaxy 756B in the delta quadrant.
Could you name for us those planets like the Earth in these galaxies?
Do you know what a galaxy is?
Do you realize that there are billions of stars in each of billions of galaxies and a significant number of those stars have planets?
So there are well over a billion billion planets - none of which are easily detectable.
And you think we have names for them all?
Or do you honestly think you were being clever by asking him to name them in the hope of covering up the fact that you were outright wrong.
If the galaxy was too elliptical star formation would cease before sufficient heavy element build up for life chemistry could occur.
If the galaxy were too irregular radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe and heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available.
Name all the galaxies which are unsuitable for life.
Seriously now, can you at least give us the parameters that we are talking about? How much more or less elliptical must he galaxy be before life can no-longer survive? What percentage of known galaxies match or do not match the required parameters?
Originally posted by jaywillAnd 5% of a billion is 50 million. I don't know the exact count, but galaxies are in the billions and possibly hundreds of billions, but we can be sure that there are much more than 50 million galaxies that are spirals.
Actually only 5% of the galaxies in the known universe are spirals. The other 95% are irregular or elliptical.
Now lets look at your argument from a different perspective. Suppose a fish lives in a lake. Less than 5% of the earths surface is covered by lakes. The fish is sitting there going "I know there is a God because it is amazing coincidence that I am in a lake! and fish like me could not possibly live anywhere else on earth - the conditions just aren't right!
Originally posted by jaywillThat is total claptrap:
"...one in which atoms and molecules bond with oxygen atoms. Favorable would be a "reducing" atmosphere, one in which atoms and molecules bond with hydrogen rather than with oxigen atoms. Neutral, as Chyba and Sagan define it, would be an atmosphere that allows at least some hydrogen bonding. But this idea, too, reflects wishful thinking. Atmospheric physici ree oxigen exists to oxidize organic compounds) for at least the last four billion years....
It has been a well established FACT that life got started billions of years before the atmosphere had any oxygen. It had to have happened that way! -because it is life (in the form of photosynthetic plants and blue-green algae) which produced the oxygen in the first place! So it is LIFE that came BEFORE the OXYGEN and not the other way around! Any good science textbook on the subject will state that -so look it up. Without life there would be no oxygen! If you deny this then what is your explanation of where all that oxygen came from?
Originally posted by jaywill…I think the essence of your comment is that we really have no basis to believe that a mighty coincidence has taken place. …
I think the essence of your comment is that we really have no basis to believe that a mighty coincidence has taken place.
Well, a mighty coincidence is not the only reason I believe in God but it is a reason.
You have a "No Basis for Surprise at the Coincidence" argument. But I doubt that you transfer that attitude to your everyday life.
If you alleged Qauntum Tunneling caused it to pop into existence.
We are [b]STILL HERE.[/b]
Correct.
…You have a "No Basis for Surprise at the Coincidence" argument…
Nop. As you demonstrated in your first sentence, you know that that is not my argument I gave. The argument I gave is a "No Basis for believing that there is the Coincidence" argument. I said nothing about “Surprise at the Coincidence” and you know it and it is dishonest of you to pretend that you don’t.
I have got wise to at least one of your tactics. I have noticed that whenever you have really lost the argument, instead of admitting you were wrong (which is what I do and HAVE DONE in the past and I HAVE on occasions lost the argument in the past) you act like you somehow misunderstood the argument because you mistaken it for a similar sounding argument that is, never the less, not the actual argument that demonstrate that you are wrong. I initially gave you the benefit of the doubt and treated this as if your apparent misunderstanding was real. But I have noticed that you always appear to show misunderstanding in response to an argument when the argument is of a type that you would find very difficult to refute. So, for that reason, I no longer give you the benefit of the doubt and so I accuse you of pretending not to quite understand either my nor anybody else’s arguments that you do not know how to refute.
..One more thing. Quantum Tunnelling says that elements may pop into existence from nowhere given that they also pop OUT of existence in a very short time….
“… So if the universe popped into existence according to Quantum Tunnelling…”
Again you demonstrate your complete ignorance of science:
1, “Quantum Tunnelling” does not cause things to "pop into existence “! “Quantum Tunnelling” causes microscopic particles to pass through certain barriers that would otherwise be impossible for them to go though -it doesn’t create new particles by making them “pop into existence“! So what you say here doesn’t even make sense.
2, again, I accuse you of pretending not to quite understand what I said. As you must know, obviously neither I nor anyone else said nor implied that: “the universe popped into existence according to Quantum Tunnelling” because that is total claptrap to anyone with basic understanding of Quantum Tunnelling.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe verse went on to say that with God ANYthing is possible. You non-Christians love to quote verses out of context. But yua can't get one by on the ol' man!😀
I was told when I was young that Jesus did tell all his disciples to give up their belongings and follow him. Now I fully admit that I do not know of any verses to back that up.
However I am almost certain that there is a verse which says something about how it is practically impossible for a rich man to get into heaven. Something about a camel and a nee ...[text shortened]... have a remarkable ability to ignore any verse that does not agree with their current lifestyle.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton=================================
[b]…I think the essence of your comment is that we really have no basis to believe that a mighty coincidence has taken place. …
Correct.
…You have a "No Basis for Surprise at the Coincidence" argument…
Nop. As you demonstrated in your first sentence, you know that that is not my argument I gave. The argument I gave is a "No Basis g” because that is total claptrap to anyone with basic understanding of Quantum Tunnelling.[/b]
Nop. As you demonstrated in your first sentence, you know that that is not my argument I gave. The argument I gave is a "No Basis for believing that there is the Coincidence" argument. I said nothing about “Surprise at the Coincidence” and you know it and it is dishonest of you to pretend that you don’t.
=====================================
Nothing sneaky going on here Andrew. Take Something Happening of Low Probability and "Surprise" to mean the same thing.
No dishonesty going there. Misunderstanding perhaps.
========================================
can name one. Zamomorph 5. Its in star Group 45HE in galaxy 756B in the delta quadrant.
==========================================
I couldn't find it anywhere on the Web. And Captain Picard is out of the office today on vacation.
==================================
Do you know what a galaxy is?
==================================
Now why wouldn't I know what a galaxy is ?
I've been fascinated with what a galaxy is since the mid 1950s. I remember the thrill of seeing Andromeda through my Edmond's Scientific Company Refractor Telescope aroung 1961.
======================================
Do you realize that there are billions of stars in each of billions of galaxies and a significant number of those stars have planets?
======================================
I have long known that there are bilions of galaxies. I have also long known that each contains billions of stars.
But it is only lately that real planets are being discovered at a pretty regular pace. And contrary to what you might believe about an Evangelical Christian, I find the news very exciting and interesting.
So far though I think they have only come up with gas giants. Still I have AWAYS been interested in astronomy. And I am happy that I lived long enough to hear about the discovery of other planets outside our solar system.
However, Jesus is Still Lord.
========================================
So there are well over a billion billion planets - none of which are easily detectable.
======================================
I know that they are not easy to find. They discover the planets by examining the wobble in the stars around which probable planets orbit.
===============================
And you think we have names for them all?
==================================
I think there should be under 100 planets or so discovered by now. They may not all have names. But they know where they are.
I think they are all gas giants.
Still waiting for you to tell me something that I don't know in this post.
====================================
Or do you honestly think you were being clever by asking him to name them in the hope of covering up the fact that you were outright wrong.
======================================
The tone may have been a little flippant. I concede that. However he stuck himself out on a limb like EVERYBODY knows that there are earth like planets all over the place.
That was a bold statement. That fact of the matter is that we still have yet to verify that.
When we find one, THEN we can boast that we FOUND one. Right now the sample size is small. We KNOW of ONE Earth like planet - the Earth. Our sample size is 1.
Now we may find more. But then again you may brace yourself for the possibility that the Creator is teasing us a little.
I mean, look at the utter uniqueness of our MOON. There is no other moon like it in the solar system. It should not exist. I didn't say that. A professor at MIT said that in a lecture jokingly. According to the laws of physics the moon does not exist. LOL.
It was tongue in cheek. We know the moon does exist and is extraordinarily unque in comparison to the body that it orbits.
The Creator may be teasing us with the uniqueness of our world. But He does not forbid us to search for another like ours.
=======================================
Name all the galaxies which are unsuitable for life.
=====================================
Here is the quotation from Phd. Ross:
"The location, types, rates, and timings of both supernova events and white dwarf binaries severely contrains the possibility of finding a life support site. The vast majority of galaxies are eliminated from contention, and the vast majority of stars in the few remaining galaxies also are eliminated."
He follows this comment with a discussion of proposed other forms of life beside carbon based. This comment follows:
"Another sensitive characteristic of our galaxy for life support is stellar density. Most galaxies and all globular clusters (spherically symmetric systems of stars containing more than a hundred thousand stars and residing around and inbetween galaxies) have stellar densities far too high for life-supportable planets. If the stars are too close to one another, their gravitational interactions with one another disrupt planetary orbits. On the other hand, the stars cannot be too far apart. IF they are, the life-essential heavy elements residing in the interstellar medium will be too thinly distributed. This eliminates many dwarf and irregular galaxies from contention. The need for the right stellar density also means the sun's location is sensitive. A distance too close or far away from the center of the galaxy or too close of far away from the densest part of the spiral arm in which it resides would eliminate the possibility of a planet capable of supporting life."
=================================
Seriously now, can you at least give us the parameters that we are talking about? How much more or less elliptical must he galaxy be before life can no-longer survive? What percentage of known galaxies match or do not match the required parameters?
=====================================
I think Ross is saying that of the known galaxies 5% are in the running for probable earth like life support. This book was written in 1993. The last re-publication of the book seems to have been in 1998.