AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

It takes more than just temperature and an iron core to make a planet hospitable for life. The 100% certainty by one scientist is ludicrous wishful thinking. If two planets have life an atheist scientist will say, there goes God and a privileged Earth. To understand what a life-giving planet must be like read both 'Real Earth' and 'Privileged Planet'.-http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/29/odds-life-newfound-earth-size-planet-percent-astronomer-say/?test=latestnews

3958 views

I think there is a confusion here between the possibility to support life, and the possibility to evolve life from nothing. Even if we accept abiogenesis as true, the fact that the planet is tidally locked and has no independent rotation in relation to its sun would cause a host of issues I think. At the very least, I would say that harboring carbon based life forms would be highly unlikely. The variables we need to survive and thrive are too many, and the earth's distance and orbit around the sun is just a tiny fraction of that.

4009 views

I think there is a confusion here between the possibility to support life, and the possibility to evolve life from nothing. Even if we accept abiogenesis as true, the fact that the planet is tidally locked and has no independent rotation in relation to its sun would cause a host of issues I think. At the very least, I would say that harboring carbon based life forms would be highly unlikely. The variables we need to survive and thrive are too many, and the earth's distance and orbit around the sun is just a tiny fraction of that.-You are absolutely on the money. Here is a more resonable version of the find:-Newly discovered planet may have water on its surface
Posted on September 30, 2010 by Anthony Watts -This artist's conception shows the inner four planets of the Gliese 581 system and their host star, a red dwarf star only 20 light-years away from Earth. The large planet in the foreground is the newly discovered GJ 581g, an Earth-size planet that orbits in the star's habitable zone. Artwork by Lynette Cook.
From the University of HawaiÊ»i at MÄnoa-The planet, which is probably 30 percent larger than Earth, was discovered using one of the telescopes of the W. M. Keck Observatory on Mauna Kea. It orbits a relatively small star, Gliese 581, that is 20 light-years from Earth in the constellation Libra.-
"By determining the orbit of this planet, we can deduce that its surface temperature is similar to that of Earth," said Haghighipour. This means that at least some of any water on the surface of the planet and in its atmosphere will be in liquid form rather than ice or vapor. The discovery of liquid water in space is an important step in the search for extraterrestrial life.-The team estimates that the new planet, called Gliese 581g, has a mass three to four times that of Earth, and orbits its star in just under 37 Earth days. Its mass indicates that it is probably a rocky planet with enough gravity to hold on to its atmosphere. It is one of six known planets orbiting the star.-To discover the planet, the team looked for the tiny changes in the star's velocity that arise from the gravitational tugs of its planets. They used 238 separate observations of Gliese 581 taken over a period of 11 years.-Haghighipour said that the team is keeping tabs on many nearby stars using the Keck Observatory. "As we collect more and more data about how these stars are moving, we expect to find many more planets with potentially Earth-like conditions," he said. He noted that to learn more about the conditions on these planets would take even bigger telescopes, such at the Thirty Meter Telescope planned for Mauna Kea.-The team that made the discovery is led by Steven Vogt of the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC) and Paul Butler of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Other team members include UCSC associate research scientist Eugenio Rivera, and Gregory Henry and Michael Williamson of Tennessee State University.-This research was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and the NASA Astrobiology Institute.

3959 views

"By determining the orbit of this planet, we can deduce that its surface temperature is similar to that of Earth," said Haghighipour. This means that at least some of any water on the surface of the planet and in its atmosphere will be in liquid form rather than ice or vapor. The discovery of liquid water in space is an important step in the search for extraterrestrial life.-
Actually, I am not even sure about this statement. If the planet has one face always to the sun, and one always away from the sun, it stands to reason that one side could possibly be perpetual vapor without condensation and the other perpetually frozen without thaw. It is possible, however slightly, that at the boundary area between night side and day side there could be an extremely limited amount of water in liquid form. However, this is a much more level headed response than the one you previously linked. Thanks for sharing.

3956 views

It takes more than just temperature and an iron core to make a planet hospitable for life. The 100% certainty by one scientist is ludicrous wishful thinking. If two planets have life an atheist scientist will say, there goes God and a privileged Earth. To understand what a life-giving planet must be like read both 'Real Earth' and 'Privileged Planet'.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/29/odds-life-newfound-earth-size-planet-percent-... astronomer wasn't speaking as an astronomer when he said that. -"I would say, my own personal feeling..."-It's pretty clear that he's excited and gushing... and likely eying a future Nobel.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3905 views

There may be a whole bunch of 'Earths' out there according to a very recent astronomic study of 'nearby suns':-http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-solar-common.html

3900 views

It takes more than just temperature and an iron core to make a planet hospitable for life. The 100% certainty by one scientist is ludicrous wishful thinking. If two planets have life an atheist scientist will say, there goes God and a privileged Earth. To understand what a life-giving planet must be like read both 'Real Earth' and 'Privileged Planet'.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/29/odds-life-newfound-earth-size-planet-percent-... is an excellent discussion of the requirement of stability for a planet in order to produce life. This is further evidence that our planet is rather unique:-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954004576089942711749766.html?KEYWORDS=Matt+Ridley

3811 views

Can there be another zone in our Galaxy that will allow life? this study says so. The book 'Real Earth' in discussed, but "Privileged Planet" is not.-http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-galactic-danger-zone.html

3780 views

Fear no super nova. No star close to us will be able to blow up.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-supernova.html

3707 views

We live in two Goldylocks zones, one in the galaxy, the other in our solar system. This article, in a silly way, points out worries about how long the Earth will say in the solar zone. Don't worry within current lifespans:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829202.100-goodbye-goldilocks-the-untimely-end-of-life-on-earth.html?page=1

3513 views

We know we are the goldilocks planet, but others that are said to be in the 'zone' may be under other conditions that make habitability impossible:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/goldilocks-planets-might-not-be-so-nice?utm_source=Tod...

The recent discovery of a planet around Proxima Centauri, the closest star to our own sun, created immense excitement. Not only was the new world, called Proxima Centauri b (Proxima b for short), conveniently close to us – only about four light-years away – it was roughly the mass of Earth and just the right distance from its host star. A “habitable planet”!

But don’t fire up the generation ships just yet.

In the study of alien worlds, there is perhaps no designation more hopeful, or more misleading, than “habitable”. While it evokes a vision of a pleasant, temperate world, complete with breathable air and a human-friendly landscape, to an astronomer it means none of those things. While we would certainly classify our own planet as habitable, the term could be applied to any of a wide range of lethal nightmare planets, and Proxima b might be one of them.

***

All we know is that for the kind of life that exists on Earth, liquid water is a necessity – at least intermittently.

While we would classify our own planet as habitable, the term could be applied to a wide range of lethal nightmare planets.

With current technology, we don’t have the capability to conclusively detect liquid water on the surface of any worlds outside our own solar system, so we have to work with the information we have – the temperature of the star and the distance of the planet’s orbit. A planet too close to its star might be so hot that water would immediately boil off. Too far away, and it’s a solid ice world. The habitable zone is the sweet spot, the Goldilocks zone, in which the amount of starlight reaching the planet is just enough to allow water to exist on the surface in liquid form.

But there are some caveats, and they’re big. Distance isn’t everything when it comes to the temperature on a planet’s surface. In our own solar system, both Venus and Mars are often considered to be in the habitable zone. However, Venus has such a suffocatingly thick atmosphere that it’s undergone a runaway greenhouse effect; its surface is a sweltering 460 °C. The present-day atmosphere of Mars is so thin that liquid water can only appear briefly in salty rivulets on crater slopes on the warmest days of the year.

***

Studying the atmosphere of exoplanets is difficult. So far we’ve only been able to examine a tiny number of atmospheres, and none belong to rocky worlds in the habitable zone. But a problematic atmosphere isn’t the only thing that can render a world uninhabitable. In many cases, we don’t know for certain if a planet has a surface at all.In the case of Proxima b, we can tell that it’s at least 1.3 times as massive as Earth – and no more than three times – but if it’s over two, it’s probably more like Neptune, forgoing any solid surface for a thick gas and liquid envelope over a small, deep, rocky core.

***

Another wild card for Proxima b is its host star. Proxima Centauri is a red dwarf, much cooler and smaller than our Sun. This means Proxima Centauri’s habitable zone lies very close to it – so close that the gravitational interaction between it and its planet is extreme enough that Proxima b is probably tidally locked. This means that the same side of the planet faces the star at all times, in the same way our moon always shows us its same face.

On such a world, rather than a temperate, circulating atmosphere, the day side might be boiling and the night side frozen. Even worse, Proxima Centauri is a flare star, meaning that it sends out giant flares of stellar material into space with alarming frequency. Even if Proxima b had a perfectly good atmosphere to begin with, it may have been stripped by its star’s unruly outbursts.

With future telescopes, some of them already under construction, we might soon be able to peer directly at Proxima b to analyse its atmosphere. In the meantime, we can only speculate and search for more habitable planets in the hope of learning more about our own origins. Perhaps someday we’ll find unmistakable signs of life on another world.

Comment: The very unusual attributes of the Earth have been covered. We are a rocky planet, with a molten core, floating continents with subduction zones, a protective magnetic field, a thick atmosphere, a single large moon which stabilizes our tilt, creating tides and seasons. The list fills at least three books I know of. Even our solar system is highly unusual compared to the ones currently discovered. But we can only know what is present in a small corner of our galaxy, two thirds of the way out on the second spiral arm. Of course other galaxies could have Earths, and God could be in charge of all of it.

3387 views

We know we are the goldilocks planet, but others that are said to be in the 'zone' may be under other conditions that make habitability impossible:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/goldilocks-planets-might-not-be-so-nice?utm_source=Tod...

Comment: The very unusual attributes of the Earth have been covered. We are a rocky planet, with a molten core, floating continents with subduction zones, a protective magnetic field, a thick atmosphere, a single large moon which stabilizes our tilt, creating tides and seasons. The list fills at least three books I know of. Even our solar system is highly unusual compared to the ones currently discovered. But we can only know what is present in a small corner of our galaxy, two thirds of the way out on the second spiral arm. Of course other galaxies could have Earths, and God could be in charge of all of it.

Looking back on this entry, it surely looks like God made the Earth the way it is. No other attributes for a planet could support carbon-based life.

3418 views

Hugh Ross lists the requirements for advanced life:

http://www.reasons.org/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/overlap-of-habitable-zones-ge...

"The two habitable zones that have been the subject of the most research by astronomers are the liquid water habitable zone and the ultraviolet habitable zone. All physical life-forms need liquid water to exist. The liquid water habitable zone marks where liquid water conceivably could exist on a planet, depending on its distance from a star.

"Ultraviolet radiation is needed for the synthesis of many biochemical compounds that are essential for physical life. Therefore, if the ultraviolet radiation from a host star is too weak, no life is possible on that planet. On the other hand, if the ultraviolet radiation falling upon a planet’s surface is too strong, DNA and other life-critical biomolecules will be damaged to a degree that wipes out all life. The ultraviolet habitable zone is the area where the ultraviolet radiation from a star is neither too weak nor too strong for the existence of life.

***

"The ultraviolet habitable zone is not the same width for all forms of life. It is widest for a few species of especially radiation-resistant bacteria. These are bacteria that devote most of their metabolic energy to repairing the damage caused by exposure to ultraviolet radiation. The ultraviolet habitable zone is much narrower for ordinary microbes. It is much narrower still for megaflora and megafauna. It is extremely narrow for the photosynthetic plants on which humans and their domesticated animals depend upon for food.

"The ultraviolet habitable zone is also very narrow for humans or any life-form equivalent to human beings. Humans need a minimum level of exposure to ultraviolet radiation to synthesize vitamin D, stimulate the pineal gland, and prevent psoriasis and eczema. Only slightly more exposure to ultraviolet radiation, however, causes skin cancer, melanoma, and loss of eyesight.

"For host stars with an effective temperature more than 7,100 K (7,100 °C above absolute zero) or less than 4,600 K, even for just microbes, a team of four Chinese astronomers showed that the liquid water and ultraviolet habitable zones will not overlap.1 This may seem like a fairly wide effective temperature range, but it is narrow enough to eliminate all but 3 percent of the Milky Way Galaxy’s stars.

"Now, a paper recently published by Japanese astronomers Midori Oishi and Hideyuki Kamaya establishes that the zone of overlap is even narrower.2 For the first time, Oishi and Kamaya took into account the effect of the host star’s metallicity on the position and width of the star’s ultraviolet habitable zone. Metallicity is a measure of the fraction of a star’s mass that is comprised of elements heavier than helium. Because the Sun is a relatively late-born star (it is a third generation star), its metallicity = 0.02. Most of the universe’s stars are second generation stars and possess metallicity values substantially less than the Sun’s.

***

"Oishi and Kamaya also demonstrated that for all metallicity values of host stars, a region of overlap of the liquid water and ultraviolet habitable zones exists only for stars as massive as or more massive than the Sun. The more massive a star the higher its effective temperature. The Sun’s effective temperature = 5,772 K. This new lower effective temperature limit—for the liquid water and ultraviolet habitable zones to overlap for a significant time period—leaves only about 1.5 percent of the Milky Way Galaxy’s stars as candidates for habitability. Also including the metallicity requirements leaves less than 1 percent of our galaxy stars as candidates.

"These candidate limits for possible habitability are for microbes only. For plants and animals to possibly exist on a planet the ultraviolet habitable zone is much narrower and there is much less possibility of overlap with the liquid water habitable zone. The constraints are even more confining yet for advanced life and especially so for advanced life maintaining a high-technology civilization.

"For plants, animals, and advanced life to possibly exist, the liquid water and ultraviolet habitable zones must sustain their region of overlap for at least a few billion years. This longevity requirement creates a problem for all stars more massive than the Sun. Such stars burn up much faster than the Sun and their luminosities change much more radically than does the Sun’s. The faster and more dramatic burn-up histories of stars more massive than the Sun eliminates the planets orbiting such stars from possibly possessing plants, animals, or advanced life.

"As noted earlier, for a planet to remain habitable it must avoid at least five different kinds of dangerous ultraviolet sources beyond its host star. As I describe in some detail in Improbable Planet, one of the more remarkable and very improbable features of our planet Earth is that it has indeed avoided sterilization from these sources."

Comment: the more the Earth is studied, the more exclusivity it presents. It could well be the only planet in the universe that supports life. It certainly appears to represent God at work.

3313 views

I know David and myself believe in a God, regardless of whether we disagree on His/Her nature. What I wonder is how much more evidence of extreme improbability is need before others come around to the idea that life without a God is (IMHO) a simple impossibility.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

3252 views

DAVID’s comment: the more the Earth is studied, the more exclusivity it presents. It could well be the only planet in the universe that supports life. It certainly appears to represent God at work.

TONY: I know David and myself believe in a God, regardless of whether we disagree on His/Her nature. What I wonder is how much more evidence of extreme improbability is need before others come around to the idea that life without a God is (IMHO) a simple impossibility.

As an agnostic, I find the design argument (the enormous complexity of even the most basic forms of life) extremely compelling. However, the possible exclusivity of the Earth is far from compelling. Why would your God create billions and billions of solar systems that come and go, all for the sake of one tiny planet? What a waste of energy! (At least life elsewhere might remove that objection). The sheer immensity - perhaps even infinity - of the universe creates doubts: which is harder to believe in – a mind which incredibly has no origin and can encompass infinity, or an incredibly lucky combination in an infinity of combinations? I use “incredibly” in its most literal sense, because that is the agnostic’s dilemma. I cannot believe in either explanation. And so I am wrong one way or the other! Ah, but which way?

3304 views

DAVID’s comment: the more the Earth is studied, the more exclusivity it presents. It could well be the only planet in the universe that supports life. It certainly appears to represent God at work.

TONY: I know David and myself believe in a God, regardless of whether we disagree on His/Her nature. What I wonder is how much more evidence of extreme improbability is need before others come around to the idea that life without a God is (IMHO) a simple impossibility.

dhw: As an agnostic, I find the design argument (the enormous complexity of even the most basic forms of life) extremely compelling. However, the possible exclusivity of the Earth is far from compelling. Why would your God create billions and billions of solar systems that come and go, all for the sake of one tiny planet? What a waste of energy! (At least life elsewhere might remove that objection). The sheer immensity - perhaps even infinity - of the universe creates doubts: which is harder to believe in – a mind which incredibly has no origin and can encompass infinity, or an incredibly lucky combination in an infinity of combinations? I use “incredibly” in its most literal sense, because that is the agnostic’s dilemma. I cannot believe in either explanation. And so I am wrong one way or the other! Ah, but which way?

Once again you are using your human judgment to consider God's work. Humans judged the human retina and laughed at its strange backwards, upside down arrangement, but human research shows it is the best retina extant for precise vision. Now you comment fits that example:
"Why would your God create billions and billions of solar systems that come and go, all for the sake of one tiny planet? What a waste of energy!"

How do you KNOW it is a waste of energy. Our solar system requires a special kind of sun, not a common style star, as one example of Hugh Ross's comments, presented yesterday, about our special Earth. It is YOUR human judgment that gets in your way.

3338 views

dhw: As an agnostic, I find the design argument (the enormous complexity of even the most basic forms of life) extremely compelling. However, the possible exclusivity of the Earth is far from compelling. Why would your God create billions and billions of solar systems that come and go, all for the sake of one tiny planet? What a waste of energy! (At least life elsewhere might remove that objection). The sheer immensity - perhaps even infinity - of the universe creates doubts: which is harder to believe in – a mind which incredibly has no origin and can encompass infinity, or an incredibly lucky combination in an infinity of combinations? I use “incredibly” in its most literal sense, because that is the agnostic’s dilemma. I cannot believe in either explanation. And so I am wrong one way or the other! Ah, but which way?

DAVID: Once again you are using your human judgment to consider God's work. Humans judged the human retina and laughed at its strange backwards, upside down arrangement, but human research shows it is the best retina extant for precise vision. Now you comment fits that example:
"Why would your God create billions and billions of solar systems that come and go, all for the sake of one tiny planet? What a waste of energy!"
How do you KNOW it is a waste of energy. Our solar system requires a special kind of sun, not a common style star, as one example of Hugh Ross's comments, presented yesterday, about our special Earth. It is YOUR human judgment that gets in your way.

Of course I don't "KNOW" anything, and nor do you, but what other judgement can either of us use? Please explain, then, how you think a solar system that died billions of years ago, billions of light years away from our own, might have been vital for the the production of human beings. If you can’t do so, then you should be able to understand why I am sceptical.

3314 views

It may NOT have been directly related to human creation. It may have been necessary to creating a universe in who life could exist, though. There are so many interdependant links between seemingly unrelated things that absolutely must exist for life to even be possible that it is staggering. What you are asking is akin to asking what crushing ore has to do with your brakes. Nothing at all, directly, but if it never happened, no one would able to make your brakes.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

3316 views

Tony: It may NOT have been directly related to human creation. It may have been necessary to creating a universe in who life could exist, though. There are so many interdependant links between seemingly unrelated things that absolutely must exist for life to even be possible that it is staggering. What you are asking is akin to asking what crushing ore has to do with your brakes. Nothing at all, directly, but if it never happened, no one would able to make your brakes.

Just why the dangerous asteroids are around. See next entry

3298 views

(Tony, would you please reproduce the passage on which you comment? It saves precious time hunting back and forth!)

Dhw (to David;) Of course I don't "KNOW" anything, and nor do you, but what other judgement can either of us use? Please explain, then, how you think a solar system that died billions of years ago, billions of light years away from our own, might have been vital for the production of human beings. If you can’t do so, then you should be able to understand why I am sceptical.
Tony: It may NOT have been directly related to human creation. It may have been necessary to creating a universe in who life could exist, though. There are so many interdependant links between seemingly unrelated things that absolutely must exist for life to even be possible that it is staggering. What you are asking is akin to asking what crushing ore has to do with your brakes. Nothing at all, directly, but if it never happened, no one would able to make your brakes.

It is David who insists that his God created the universe for the sake of producing humans. I’m afraid your own response, that my long defunct solar system “may have been necessary”, is hardly an answer. Analogies with human inventions really don’t help me either. It is the vastness and remoteness of these billions of solar systems extant and extinct that underlie my scepticism.

DAVID: Are you forgetting how special this universe has to be in fine tuning for life to appear. Therefore the universe had to be planned in a very special way to evolve to the point when the Earth formed. Solar systems came and went until the right one appeared.

And there you have the nub of this particular matter. Are you, then, saying that your God experimented with billions of wrong solar systems until he was able to create the right one (though you reject experimentation on the asteroid thread)? How does that make my long-gone, far-away wrong one vital for the production of humans? The atheist can say that billions of wrong solar systems came and went until the right one came along, and what a stroke of luck for all of us. (I find both hypotheses equally incredible.)

DAVID: God worked with an evolving universe. Look at the whole picture, not bits and pieces.

According to you, God made the universe to evolve so that it would produce humans. But you only look at bits and pieces in the form of those factors which we know gave rise to life and eventually to humans. So once again: please look at the whole picture and tell me why you think a solar system that died billions of years ago, billions of light years away from our own, might have been vital for the production of human beings.

3321 views

Sorry, but the formatting on my cell phone makes that difficult.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

3283 views

dhw: It is the vastness and remoteness of these billions of solar systems extant and extinct that underlie my scepticism.

DAVID: Are you forgetting how special this universe has to be in fine tuning for life to appear. Therefore the universe had to be planned in a very special way to evolve to the point when the Earth formed. Solar systems came and went until the right one appeared.

dhw: And there you have the nub of this particular matter. Are you, then, saying that your God experimented with billions of wrong solar systems until he was able to create the right one

DAVID: God worked with an evolving universe. Look at the whole picture, not bits and pieces.

dhw: According to you, God made the universe to evolve so that it would produce humans. But you only look at bits and pieces in the form of those factors which we know gave rise to life and eventually to humans. So once again: please look at the whole picture and tell me why you think a solar system that died billions of years ago, billions of light years away from our own, might have been vital for the production of human beings.

You are totally missing my big picture. I have presented the idea that God uses evolutionary processes. Evolutions progress under rules of development as the universe did and still does. God did not look at 'experimental solar systems'. Our system is extremely rare as shown by its fine tuning: 20 major parameters and over 100 minor ones with more being added as we discuss. When it appeared five billion years ago, God either stepped in and guided Earth's development or it developed under His original rules. You will see this concept parallels my pre-planning or dabbling concept in regards to evolution of living organisms. You are looking in wonder at the first 8.8 billion years of the universe before ours arrived to bring up those dead solar systems. It simply took that long to create ours! Of course, since you don't believe in God, you have every right to question His methods. I look to find His methods in what we know about cosmology.

3311 views

DAVID: Solar systems came and went until the right one appeared.
dhw: And there you have the nub of this particular matter. Are you, then, saying that your God experimented with billions of wrong solar systems until he was able to create the right one?
DAVID: God worked with an evolving universe. Look at the whole picture, not bits and pieces.
dhw: According to you, God made the universe to evolve so that it would produce humans. But you only look at bits and pieces in the form of those factors which we know gave rise to life and eventually to humans. So once again: please look at the whole picture and tell me why you think a solar system that died billions of years ago, billions of light years away from our own, might have been vital for the production of human beings.
DAVID: You are totally missing my big picture. I have presented the idea that God uses evolutionary processes. Evolutions progress under rules of development as the universe did and still does.

For those who believe in God and evolution, of course God uses evolutionary processes which develop! The dispute between us is to what extent he planned the whole course of evolution (every solar system, every organism), to what extent his powers are limited, and to what extent he deliberately allows the evolutionary processes to go their own way.

DAVID: God did not look at 'experimental solar systems'.

Another of your authoritative statements. How do you know?

DAVID: Our system is extremely rare as shown by its fine tuning: […] God either stepped in and guided Earth's development or it developed under His original rules. You will see this concept parallels my pre-planning or dabbling concept in regards to evolution of living organisms. […]I look to find His methods in what we know about cosmology.

I agree that there is a parallel, and we look to find your God’s methods (and intentions) in what we know about all aspects of life. You insist that he knew what he wanted (humans) and how to get it (no experimenting). I keep asking why, in that case, you think he needed to create billions of other solar systems, extant and extinct, and the weaverbird’s nest, the frog’s tongue and the monarch butterfly’s lifestyle, in order to produce humans. Your answer is the nebulous “balance of nature”, which simply means he had to keep things going until he could dabble our planet/the human brain, or his Earth-producing /brain enlargement programmes could switch themselves on. Furthermore, although he knew and planned everything in advance, he may have kept discovering new limits and therefore HAVING to dabble (because his powers, but not his knowledge, may be limited) – but discovering and adapting cannot be called experimenting. All these convolutions suggest to me that your God-planned-it-all-for-humans hypothesis must at least be open to question.

DAVID: Of course, since you don't believe in God, you have every right to question His methods.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in God, but I have every right to question your interpretation both of his methods and of his intentions when they leave such colossal gaps. I wonder how many of your fellow theists believe that God planned every solar system and every evolutionary innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, extant and extinct, in order to produce humans?

3297 views

DAVID: You are totally missing my big picture. I have presented the idea that God uses evolutionary processes. Evolutions progress under rules of development as the universe did and still does.

dhw:For those who believe in God and evolution, of course God uses evolutionary processes which develop! The dispute between us is to what extent he planned the whole course of evolution (every solar system, every organism), to what extent his powers are limited, and to what extent he deliberately allows the evolutionary processes to go their own way.

I have said it occurs to me He setup an evolutionary system with rules of development. this fits the pre=planning concept and then He could dabble if he had to.

DAVID: God did not look at 'experimental solar systems'.

dhw: Another of your authoritative statements. How do you know?

I don't know, but if He set up an evolutionary system, He didn't ever have to experiment. Not authoritative if it follows the first premise.

DAVID: Our system is extremely rare as shown by its fine tuning: […] God either stepped in and guided Earth's development or it developed under His original rules. You will see this concept parallels my pre-planning or dabbling concept in regards to evolution of living organisms. […]I look to find His methods in what we know about cosmology.

dhw: although he knew and planned everything in advance, he may have kept discovering new limits and therefore HAVING to dabble (because his powers, but not his knowledge, may be limited) – but discovering and adapting cannot be called experimenting. All these convolutions suggest to me that your God-planned-it-all-for-humans hypothesis must at least be open to question.

We all have questions and you are just as convoluted.

dhw: I neither believe nor disbelieve in God, but I have every right to question your interpretation both of his methods and of his intentions when they leave such colossal gaps. I wonder how many of your fellow theists believe that God planned every solar system and every evolutionary innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, extant and extinct, in order to produce humans?

You keep repeating a wrong interpretation of my theory that He set up a continuous evolutionary process for the universe that produced solar systems on its own until ours appeared. Most theists agree with the thought that God can do anything. I'm one who is not sure of that. He obviously planned for our solar system.

3287 views

DAVID: You are totally missing my big picture. I have presented the idea that God uses evolutionary processes. Evolutions progress under rules of development as the universe did and still does.
dhw:For those who believe in God and evolution, of course God uses evolutionary processes which develop! The dispute between us is to what extent he planned the whole course of evolution (every solar system, every organism), to what extent his powers are limited, and to what extent he deliberately allows the evolutionary processes to go their own way.
DAVID: I have said it occurs to me He setup an evolutionary system with rules of development. this fits the pre=planning concept and then He could dabble if he had to.

DAVID: God did not look at 'experimental solar systems'.
dhw: Another of your authoritative statements. How do you know?
DAVID: I don't know, but if He set up an evolutionary system, He didn't ever have to experiment. Not authoritative if it follows the first premise.

I notice you have omitted to say that the purpose of all his plans and dabbles was to produce humans. I don’t know how “having to dabble” fits in with pre-planning but not with experimentation. Anyway, what we now have is God setting up a higgledy-piggledy system of do-it-yourself solar systems in order to produce humans, but then stepping in when the right one came along. See below for further thoughts on this.

dhw: although he knew and planned everything in advance, he may have kept discovering new limits and therefore HAVING to dabble (because his powers, but not his knowledge, may be limited) – but discovering and adapting cannot be called experimenting. All these convolutions suggest to me that your God-planned-it-all-for-humans hypothesis must at least be open to question.
DAVID: We all have questions and you are just as convoluted.

That hardly resolves the above contradictions in your hypothesis.

dhw: I neither believe nor disbelieve in God, but I have every right to question your interpretation both of his methods and of his intentions when they leave such colossal gaps. I wonder how many of your fellow theists believe that God planned every solar system and every evolutionary innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, extant and extinct, in order to produce humans?
DAVID: You keep repeating a wrong interpretation of my theory that He set up a continuous evolutionary process for the universe that produced solar systems on its own until ours appeared. Most theists agree with the thought that God can do anything. I'm one who is not sure of that. He obviously planned for our solar system.

I didn’t know your theory was that solar systems came and went of their own accord until ours “appeared”. I thought you thought your God specifically designed ours, and I wonder why he (had to) set up a system in which solar systems autonomously created and destroyed themselves for the sake of producing humans. However, this – as you said before – provides a neat parallel to my own theistic hypothesis regarding life’s history: that he set up a system that produced all sorts of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders which the organisms themselves autonomously created, though most of them were then destroyed, and eventually humans “appeared”, though they may have been the result of a dabble.

NB If most theists disagree with your hypothesis, you can hardly use my agnosticism as an argument against my own.

3308 views

DAVID: I don't know, but if He set up an evolutionary system, He didn't ever have to experiment. Not authoritative if it follows the first premise.

dhw: I notice you have omitted to say that the purpose of all his plans and dabbles was to produce humans. I don’t know how “having to dabble” fits in with pre-planning but not with experimentation.

You know my thoughts about His purpose of humans. Why waste space? Dabbling only exists, in my mind, because I do not know how all-powerful he is. And you know that also.

DAVID: You keep repeating a wrong interpretation of my theory that He set up a continuous evolutionary process for the universe that produced solar systems on its own until ours appeared. Most theists agree with the thought that God can do anything. I'm one who is not sure of that. He obviously planned for our solar system.

dhw:I didn’t know your theory was that solar systems came and went of their own accord until ours “appeared”. I thought you thought your God specifically designed ours, and I wonder why he (had to) set up a system in which solar systems autonomously created and destroyed themselves for the sake of producing humans.

Your questions have helped my take my thoughts beyond the observation that God uses evolutionary methods, which is obvious from the history we see. If He is all-powerful then He shouldn't have to use evolutionary processes. So perhaps it is a choice, not a necessity. Either way it follows that He waited until our solar system appeared and arranged for life to appear.

dhw: NB If most theists disagree with your hypothesis, you can hardly use my agnosticism as an argument against my own.

Most theists follow the Bible. I am a theist like no other theist. And you are a pure agnostic like few others.

3296 views

i]

dhw:I didn’t know your theory was that solar systems came and went of their own accord until ours “appeared”. I thought you thought your God specifically designed ours, and I wonder why he (had to) set up a system in which solar systems autonomously created and destroyed themselves for the sake of producing humans.

David: Your questions have helped my take my thoughts beyond the observation that God uses evolutionary methods, which is obvious from the history we see. If He is all-powerful then He shouldn't have to use evolutionary processes. So perhaps it is a choice, not a necessity. Either way it follows that He waited until our solar system appeared and arranged for life to appear.

Afterthought: our universe is about 8.78 billion years old. In that period of time there could have been another galaxy that had an Earth and life. Whether it still exists we'll never know, because of the astronomical light-year distances between galaxies other then our neighborhood group. Andromeda, the closest big galaxy is over 2.5 million light years away. The closest Dwarf at 70,000 light years away is the Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy. The only evidence for life outside of Earth for us to have contact is within a close part of this galaxy, since the Milky Way is itself 100,000 light years across.

But what these facts bring up is the possibility that God has had an opportunity to develop life with this galaxy in another ideal solar system with an Earth or a series of other solar system we can never contact. Considering how quickly life appeared on Earth after it formed, there literally could be many solar systems with life, possibly with folks like us discussing the mysteries of existence. Some been and gone long before us. God could be a very busy fellow comparing the different results with Earch type of human race produced. Perhaps the galaxy is made so big so we don't ever find out about the others. A sun like ours is a special type that lasts about 10 billion years. This means some life/solar systems have been and gone. Actually, this scenario is just as reasonable as thinking ours is the only life-bearing one ever. That we may not be unique does not bother me at all.

3300 views

DAVID: I don't know, but if He set up an evolutionary system, He didn't ever have to experiment. Not authoritative if it follows the first premise.
dhw: I notice you have omitted to say that the purpose of all his plans and dabbles was to produce humans. I don’t know how “having to dabble” fits in with pre-planning but not with experimentation.
DAVID: You know my thoughts about His purpose of humans. Why waste space? Dabbling only exists, in my mind, because I do not know how all-powerful he is. And you know that also.

It is your thoughts about his purpose that create all the anomalies in your arguments, as below.

DAVID: Your questions have helped my take my thoughts beyond the observation that God uses evolutionary methods, which is obvious from the history we see. If He is all-powerful then He shouldn't have to use evolutionary processes. So perhaps it is a choice, not a necessity.

So either a) he has the power and knowledge to design every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder, but has to wait 3.X billion years until he is able to dabble the one thing he really wants: the pre-human brain (but you discount him experimenting – he just knows he can’t do it until he can do it); or b) he chooses to design every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder because he wants to, and not because he can’t yet dabble the human brain. Exit the “balance of nature” argument (to keep life going until he somehow acquires the ability he needs), and enter confusion: if he CAN do it, why DOESN’T he do it? (Possible answer: because he wants the ever changing spectacle, and maybe humans are just an afterthought. Can you think of another answer?)

DAVID: Either way it follows that He waited until our solar system appeared and arranged for life to appear.

Which makes him just as reliant on chance as our atheist friends. You realized that, of course, and came up with your afterthought, in which – also in company with our atheist friends – you have lots of other living worlds. I’m not against the hypothesis. It simply illustrates the general confusion.

dhw: NB If most theists disagree with your hypothesis, you can hardly use my agnosticism as an argument against my own.
DAVID: Most theists follow the Bible. I am a theist like no other theist. And you are a pure agnostic like few others.

You are indeed out on your own with your brand of theism, which makes it all the more absurd that you should denigrate my hypotheses on the grounds that I am an agnostic. But oddball theist and pure agnostic, we are united in our quest for enlightenment, and long may we continue to jostle along with each other!

3290 views

DAVID: Your questions have helped my take my thoughts beyond the observation that God uses evolutionary methods, which is obvious from the history we see. If He is all-powerful then He shouldn't have to use evolutionary processes. So perhaps it is a choice, not a necessity.

dhw:So either a) he has the power and knowledge to design every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder, but has to wait 3.X billion years until he is able to dabble the one thing he really wants: the pre-human brain (but you discount him experimenting – he just knows he can’t do it until he can do it); or b) he chooses to design every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder because he wants to, and not because he can’t yet dabble the human brain.

That is the most garbled interpretation of my thoughts I've seen. All I've noted is above. It is possible He chooses to use evolution for all creations, and then waits until what He expects to develop appears. None pf your convolutions.

Exit the “balance of nature” argument (to keep life going until he somehow acquires the ability he needs),

The balance of nature never exits. He always has the ability if it is His choice. Whether He has limits is possible, but like the entire discussion, we don't know.

dhw: and enter confusion: if he CAN do it, why DOESN’T he do it? (Possible answer: because he wants the ever changing spectacle, and maybe humans are just an afterthought. Can you think of another answer?)

All you are describing is your own convoluted confusion. Simply accept the fact that He chooses evolution as his process without limitations. He has the right to any choices He chooses. Why complain, we humans are here?

DAVID: Either way it follows that He waited until our solar system appeared and arranged for life to appear.

dhw: Which makes him just as reliant on chance as our atheist friends. You realized that, of course, and came up with your afterthought, in which – also in company with our atheist friends – you have lots of other living worlds.

If He controls or guides evolution there is no chance. Multiple worlds with multiple humans is something we cannot know, but also something to be considered.

dhw: But oddball theist and pure agnostic, we are united in our quest for enlightenment, and long may we continue to jostle along with each other!

Right on!

3276 views

DAVID: If He is all-powerful then He shouldn't have to use evolutionary processes. So perhaps it is a choice, not a necessity.
dhw:So either a) he has the power and knowledge to design every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder, but has to wait 3.X billion years until he is able to dabble the one thing he really wants: the pre-human brain (but you discount him experimenting – he just knows he can’t do it until he can do it); or b) he chooses to design every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder because he wants to, and not because he can’t yet dabble the human brain.
DAVID: That is the most garbled interpretation of my thoughts I've seen. All I've noted is above. It is possible He chooses to use evolution for all creations, and then waits until what He expects to develop appears. None of your convolutions.
That is choice (a): he could design all creations except the human brain, so tell us what he expected (he’s now a soothsayer instead of a designer) that enabled him to do what he wanted to do but was unable to do earlier.

DAVID: He always has the ability if it is His choice.
That is choice (b).

DAVID: Whether He has limits is possible, but like the entire discussion, we don't know.
That is choice (a) again.

dhw:… and enter confusion: if he CAN do it, why DOESN’T he do it? (Possible answer: because he wants the ever changing spectacle, and maybe humans are just an afterthought. Can you think of another answer?)
DAVID: All you are describing is your own convoluted confusion. Simply accept the fact that He chooses evolution as his process without limitations. He has the right to any choices He chooses.

But you are offering me a choice of evolution with limitations versus evolution without limitations, as above, and one makes sense to you while the other doesn’t.

DAVID: Either way it follows that He waited until our solar system appeared and arranged for life to appear.
dhw: Which makes him just as reliant on chance as our atheist friends. You realized that, of course, and came up with your afterthought, in which – also in company with our atheist friends – you have lots of other living worlds.
DAVID: If He controls or guides evolution there is no chance.

Precisely. So why do you say he waited until our solar system “appeared”? Your answer is your second hypothesis: that he may have designed all the systems with a view to creating lots of life forms. So then you will have to jettison your “waited until our solar system appeared”. More confusion.

DAVID: Multiple worlds with multiple humans is something we cannot know, but also something to be considered.
dhw: Agreed. And either he is in control or he isn’t. That is “something we cannot know”, as is the history of life’s evolution, and the existence of God, and God’s purposes and nature. But oddball theist and pure agnostic, we are united in our quest for enlightenment, and long may we continue to jostle along with each other!
DAVID: Right on!

Agreement at last!

3340 views

dhw: But you are offering me a choice of evolution with limitations versus evolution without limitations, as above, and one makes sense to you while the other doesn’t.

On the contrary I can accept either, as I have said all along.

DAVID: If He controls or guides evolution there is no chance.

dhw: Precisely. So why do you say he waited until our solar system “appeared”? Your answer is your second hypothesis: that he may have designed all the systems with a view to creating lots of life forms. So then you will have to jettison your “waited until our solar system appeared”. More confusion.

No confusion. He may be in total control and only look limited.

DAVID: Multiple worlds with multiple humans is something we cannot know, but also something to be considered.

dhw: Agreed. And either he is in control or he isn’t. That is “something we cannot know”, as is the history of life’s evolution, and the existence of God, and God’s purposes and nature. But oddball theist and pure agnostic, we are united in our quest for enlightenment, and long may we continue to jostle along with each other!

DAVID: Right on!

dhw: Agreement at last!

To continue the battle.

3324 views

David How do you KNOW it is a waste of energy. Our solar system requires a special kind of sun, not a common style star, as one example of Hugh Ross's comments, presented yesterday, about our special Earth. It is YOUR human judgment that gets in your way.[/i]

dhw: Of course I don't "KNOW" anything, and nor do you, but what other judgement can either of us use? Please explain, then, how you think a solar system that died billions of years ago, billions of light years away from our own, might have been vital for the the production of human beings. If you can’t do so, then you should be able to understand why I am sceptical.

Are you forgetting how special this universe has to be in fine tuning for life to appear. Therefore the universe had to be planned in a very special way to evolve to the point when the Earth formed. Solar systems came and went until the right one appeared. God worked with an evolving universe. Look at the whole picture, not bits and pieces. You still sound like those who denigrate the funny looking human retina.

3330 views

Tony: I know David and myself believe in a God, regardless of whether we disagree on His/Her nature. What I wonder is how much more evidence of extreme improbability is need before others come around to the idea that life without a God is (IMHO) a simple impossibility.

Cosmology is one of many areas of improbability. Look at the inside of a living cell.

3300 views

Everywhere we look,what exists is incredibly improbable, regardless of what domain of science we examine.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

3305 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum