View Full Version : The Creator
Simple question,
Impossible answer,
Was there a creator or not?
(But that is not my concern for this thread)
My question lies with the common quip that we are to complex to have happened by 'chance' and that the human eye (a commonly used example) is so complex that it must have been designed,
And so my question is this; Why do those who believe in Intellegent Design find it difficult to believe in the chance evolution of humans due to complexity, and yet rely on a creator (who would obviously have to be more complex that the creatures he creates) surly you are simply adding to the complexities needed?
chloe
11-10-2009, 09:16 PM
Simple question,
Impossible answer,
Was there a creator or not?
(But that is not my concern for this thread)
My question lies with the common quip that we are to complex to have happened by 'chance' and that the human eye (a commonly used example) is so complex that it must have been designed,
And so my question is this; Why do those who believe in Intellegent Design find it difficult to believe in the chance evolution of humans due to complexity, and yet rely on a creator (who would obviously have to be more complex that the creatures he creates) surly you are simply adding to the complexities needed?
I had to look up what the common belief of Intelligent design to see what exactly your asking, here is what I learned it to be.
What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
That being the definition, Hopefully someone who has those beliefs will be able to answer your question.
I had to look up what the common belief of Intelligent design to see what exactly your asking, here is what I learned it to be.
What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
That being the definition, Hopefully someone who has those beliefs will be able to answer your question.
ID is merely a rebranding of creationism, both boil down the same same reasoning, that we were created by a greater being/ god, and both have the same problem, the 'complexity' issue.
Missileman
11-10-2009, 09:24 PM
I had to look up what the common belief of Intelligent design to see what exactly your asking, here is what I learned it to be.
What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
That being the definition, Hopefully someone who has those beliefs will be able to answer your question.
Don't be fooled...Intelligent Design IS creationism dressed up in fancy pseudo-scientific terminology. There is nothing scientific about ID.
chloe
11-10-2009, 09:38 PM
Don't be fooled...Intelligent Design IS creationism dressed up in fancy pseudo-scientific terminology. There is nothing scientific about ID.
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
The website said Intelligent Design is a scientific Theory.....I don't know enough about what they think of it.
Missileman
11-10-2009, 11:07 PM
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
The website said Intelligent Design is a scientific Theory.....I don't know enough about what they think of it.
IDers make declarations without any regard to scientific method. Calling ID science is like calling a comic book literature. And despite the denials...ID is and was a purely evangelical Christian invention to be used to insert the Bible into public classrooms.
chloe
11-10-2009, 11:16 PM
IDers make declarations without any regard to scientific method. Calling ID science is like calling a comic book literature. And despite the denials...ID is and was a purely evangelical Christian invention to be used to insert the Bible into public classrooms.
Is intelligent design based on the Bible?
No. The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science and civilization. In the Greco-Roman tradition, Plato and Cicero both espoused early versions of intelligent design. In the history of science, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design, including Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, meanwhile, the idea that design can be discerned in nature can be found not only in the Bible but among Jewish philosophers such as Philo and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. In recent decades, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose intelligent design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity throughout the natural world.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php
Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution? It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.
chloe
11-10-2009, 11:25 PM
missleman it sounds like you know alot about Intelligent Design, so maybe you could answer the question for Noir. Here are the links form the previous website with there science resources
http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/640ee5bfb01620f5eacd6675a51bc119/miscdocs/id101_franciscollinsrebuttal.pdf
http://www.biologicinstitute.org/
http://www.pssiinternational.com/
http://www.arn.org/
I dont think my belief fits under the category of intelligent design. But it sounds like you know what's going on with that. I will enjoy reading all the answers. Great thread Noir.:salute:
avatar4321
11-12-2009, 09:14 PM
Why not simply end the debate and ask Him for yourself? that way we dont have to spend time discussing whether there is a Creator, you can get the answer from the Horses Mouth so to speak.
Why not simply end the debate and ask Him for yourself? that way we dont have to spend time discussing whether there is a Creator, you can get the answer from the Horses Mouth so to speak.
As i said in the OP, i am not wishing to discus 'if' there is a Creator or not, that would be a daft question to debate, and one which will not be resovled on message boards such as this,
What my question asks is why those who believe in ID/ Creation say that we must have been created because we are too complex, and yet anything that can create somthing complex must be more complex itself, they are thus ironicly making their idea less plausable,
PostmodernProphet
11-12-2009, 10:25 PM
you walk into a room......in the middle of the room is a table and chair....on the table is a deck of cards.....five cards are dealt.....it is a royal flush of hearts......there is a note.....it says "I dealt these cards"......
obviously the logical conclusion is that the note is a fraud, the cards not only dealt themselves but manufactured themselves, as did the chair, the table and the room.....
it is too complex to believe in a card dealer....
gabosaurus
11-12-2009, 10:32 PM
God the Creator is a belief. The belief in God is the most basic tenet of religious faith.
If you believe in God, it is difficult to explain your belief to someone who does not believe.
I know this for a fact, because I have been on both sides of the argument.
you walk into a room......in the middle of the room is a table and chair....on the table is a deck of cards.....five cards are dealt.....it is a royal flush of hearts......there is a note.....it says "I dealt these cards"......
obviously the logical conclusion is that the note is a fraud, the cards not only dealt themselves but manufactured themselves, as did the chair, the table and the room.....
it is too complex to believe in a card dealer....
Poor analogy is poor,
The fact is that IDers believe that we are too complex to be the product of chance, and so believe in a Creator that is more complex again,
Nukeman
11-13-2009, 08:22 AM
Poor analogy is poor,
The fact is that IDers believe that we are too complex to be the product of chance, and so believe in a Creator that is more complex again,
How is the analogy poor?? it makes quite a bit of sense if your willing to believe in only evolution than that is what would have had to take place!!!!!
chesswarsnow
11-13-2009, 08:30 AM
Sorry bout that,
1. I believe in God, his name is Jesus Christ.
2. But I also believe that God, is hidden from many of you.
3. And its your choice.
4. Not his.
5. You've made your choice, and have to live with it.
6. Jesus Christ heard you that day, and your will won't be altered.
7. You thought no one was there, listening, but there was, now you have no reason to believe.
8. Be careful what you wish for, should be a lesson to those in dount.
9. You may very well get your wish.
10. I have personally spoken to Jesus Christ, and he's listening to everyone.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
How is the analogy poor?? it makes quite a bit of sense if your willing to believe in only evolution than that is what would have had to take place!!!!!
Becuase it over simplifies the role of god, as merely a card dealer, as we (humans) are are as complex as the card dealer, but obviously if god is real then he is much more complex than us.
So lets keep away from simplifications, for in the words of Einstien, everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simplier, and to try and make this any simplier does not do the question justice.
Do you think we are too complex to have happened by chance Nukeman? and if so, why do you think there is a god infinatly more complex that us?
Sorry bout that,
1. I believe in God, his name is Jesus Christ.
2. But I also believe that God, is hidden from many of you.
3. And its your choice.
4. Not his.
5. You've made your choice, and have to live with it.
6. Jesus Christ heard you that day, and your will won't be altered.
7. You thought no one was there, listening, but there was, now you have no reason to believe.
8. Be careful what you wish for, should be a lesson to those in dount.
9. You may very well get your wish.
10. I have personally spoken to Jesus Christ, and he's listening to everyone.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Cool story bro,
But no attempt to answer my question, care to?
chloe
11-13-2009, 09:31 AM
It is much like love, you feel love deeply, passionately, completely. You feel love in different ways for different people. So a love for a close friend will feel different then love for your child, or love for your lover, or love for your parents, but if you asked me to provide a picture of what it looks like or show a material evidence that love exists and that it expresses itself in many different ways, I could not. So then you could technically say it does not exist since you can't see it.
crin63
11-13-2009, 11:10 AM
The very first thing that ever existed had to be created somehow. I find it much easier to believe that Someone created that first thing, rather than it evolved from absolute nothing, since there was absolute nothing to evolve from.
The very first thing that ever existed had to be created somehow. I find it much easier to believe that Someone created that first thing, rather than it evolved from absolute nothing, since there was absolute nothing to evolve from.
Well would the very first thing to come into existance not be the god, was it alright for him to just pop out of nothing?
The very fact that he would be so incredibly more complex than use, and yet you have no problem believing he could pop out of nothing is rather daft, no?
Ofcourse some religious folk try and squirm out of such questions by just saying that one god or another has existed forever, and was never not there, such arguements however are even dafter still.
crin63
11-13-2009, 01:08 PM
Well would the very first thing to come into existance not be the god, was it alright for him to just pop out of nothing?
The very fact that he would be so incredibly more complex than use, and yet you have no problem believing he could pop out of nothing is rather daft, no?
Ofcourse some religious folk try and squirm out of such questions by just saying that one god or another has existed forever, and was never not there, such arguements however are even dafter still.
However daft you may think it is I find quite irrelevant.
I believe God has existed forever and did create the very first thing. I also believe it was actually Jesus, the 2nd person of the triune Godhead that spoke the world into existence and walked in the garden. Something I find much simpler and easier to believe than random chaos being the architect.
Trigg
11-13-2009, 02:43 PM
Well would the very first thing to come into existance not be the god, was it alright for him to just pop out of nothing?
The very fact that he would be so incredibly more complex than use, and yet you have no problem believing he could pop out of nothing is rather daft, no?
Ofcourse some religious folk try and squirm out of such questions by just saying that one god or another has existed forever, and was never not there, such arguements however are even dafter still.
This is a problem I see with Athiests.
You don't believe in God (a higher power, whatevever you wanna call it), so therefore everyone who does believe in something is.....daft.
However daft you may think it is I find quite irrelevant.
I believe God has existed forever and did create the very first thing. I also believe it was actually Jesus, the 2nd person of the triune Godhead that spoke the world into existence and walked in the garden. Something I find much simpler and easier to believe than random chaos being the architect.
But can you not see that you are defeating your own arguement? You say that everything must have a begining, and that complex creatures could not have formed from Chaos,
and you then go on to say that one being has no begining, and that it is infinantly more complex.
That just doesn't make sense.
This is a problem I see with Athiests.
You don't believe in God (a higher power, whatevever you wanna call it), so therefore everyone who does believe in something is.....daft.
I do not think it is daft because it is an argument for god, that is a non-issue, the fact is that the logic involved is daft, to say 'we are to complex to have happened by chance, so we must have been created by something infinantly more complex' is senseless, you are only componding the problem of complexity further,
Trigg
11-13-2009, 04:02 PM
I do not think it is daft because it is an argument for god, that is a non-issue, the fact is that the logic involved is daft, to say 'we are to complex to have happened by chance, so we must have been created by something infinantly more complex' is senseless, you are only componding the problem of complexity further,
Your saying that believing in God doesn't make sense and the reasons people have for believing make them daft.
You don't know why people believe like they do.
If you want to be an athiest fine....why do you feel the need to insult others beliefs?
For the record I don't believe there must be something higher because we are so complex. Life doesn't come from nothing, something/someone started the whole process.
crin63
11-13-2009, 04:04 PM
But can you not see that you are defeating your own arguement? You say that everything must have a begining, and that complex creatures could not have formed from Chaos,
and you then go on to say that one being has no begining, and that it is infinantly more complex.
That just doesn't make sense.
Created things have a beginning, but not the original Creator.
Your saying that believing in God doesn't make sense and the reasons people have for believing make them daft.
No i'm not, i'm saying that believing that we must have been created because we are too complex, and that everything must have a creator except a creator, is illogical. It is the arguement which is daft, regardless of who/what you believe in.
You don't know why people believe like they do.
Nor do i, obviously everyone is an individual case, but i do often find that when it comes to creation those who believe in gods have some very conflicting arguements.
If you want to be an athiest fine....why do you feel the need to insult others beliefs?
I am merely stating the fact that these points which IDers raise to confrim their beliefs are often self-defeating, anyone who makes an arguement based on self-defeating points is daft IMO, no matter who they are or what they believe in.
For the record I don't believe there must be something higher because we are so complex. Life doesn't come from nothing, something/someone started the whole process.
You see what i mean? This very sentence makes no sense, in the first line "I don't believe there must be something higher" states you don't think there has to be a creator, and yet in the very next sentence "Life doesn't come from nothing, something/someone started the whole process" Like seriously?
Created things have a beginning, but not the original Creator.
There you are with a total break down in logic and reasoning, everything must be created, you argue, but for some reason you chose to then defy your own logic by imposing a grand creator.
Missileman
11-13-2009, 06:24 PM
How is the analogy poor?? it makes quite a bit of sense if your willing to believe in only evolution than that is what would have had to take place!!!!!
Come up with a mutli-billion-year-old blueprint of DNA or a billions of years-old laboratory and you'd have evidence of ID. That's the major flaw in ID...you have to take the existence of the designer(AKA creator) on faith.
glockmail
11-13-2009, 08:26 PM
Approximately two dozen parameters of the universe have been identified that must be carefully fixed in order for any kind of conceivable life (not just life as we know it) to exist at any time in the history of the universe. Some examples of these are given in Table 5.
Table 5: Evidence for design in the universe101 - 110
1. gravitational coupling constant
* if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar lifespans
* if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
2. strong nuclear force coupling constant
* if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life are unstable
* if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
3. weak nuclear force coupling constant
* if larger: all hydrogen is converted to helium in the big hang, hence too much heavy elements
* if smaller: no helium produced from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements
4. electromagnetic coupling constant
* if larger: no chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron are unstable to fission
* if smaller: no chemical bonding
5. ratio of protons to electrons
* if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
* if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
* if larger: no chemical bonding
* if smaller: no chemical bonding
7. expansion rate of the universe
* if larger: no galaxy formation
* if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation
8. entropy level of the universe
* if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
* if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation
9. mass density of the universe
* if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars bum too rapidly
* if smaller: no helium from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements
10. age of the universe
* if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
* if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
11. initial uniformity of radiation
* if smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
* if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
12. average distance between stars
* if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planet production
* if smaller: planetary orbits become destabilized
13. solar luminosity
* if increases too soon: runaway green house effect
* if increases too late: frozen oceans
14. fine structure constant (a function of three other fundamental constants, Planck's constant, the velocity of light, and the electron charge each of which, therefore, must be fine-tuned)
* if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
* if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses
15. decay rate of the proton
* if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
* if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life
16. 12C to 16O energy level ratio
* if larger: insufficient oxygen
* if smaller: insufficient carbon
17. decay rate of 8Be
* if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
* if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible
18. mass difference between the neutron and the proton
* if greater: protons would decay before stable nuclei could form
* if smaller: protons would decay before stable nuclei could form
18. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
* if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
* if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form
The degree of fine-tunedness for many of these parameters is utterly amazing. For example, if the strong nuclear force were even two percent stronger or two percent weaker, the universe would never be able to support life.111, 112 More astounding yet, the ground state energies for 4He, 8Be, 12C, and 16O cannot be higher or lower with respect to each other by more than four percent without yielding a universe with insufficient oxygen and/or carbon for any kind of life.110 The expansion rate of the universe is even more sensitive.113 It must be fine-tuned to an accuracy of one part in 1055! Clearly some ingenious Designer must be involved in the physics of the universe.
The discovery of this degree of design in the universe is having a profound theological impact upon astronomers. Fred Hoyle concluded in 1982 that "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology."114 Paul Davies moved from promoting atheism in 1983115 to conceding in 1984 that "the laws [of physics] ... seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design"116 to testifying in his 1988 book The Cosmic Blueprint that there "is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming."117 George Greenstein in 1988 expressed these thoughts:
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency-or, rather, Agency-must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?118
Words such as superintellect, monkeyed, exceedingly ingenious, supernatural Agency, Supreme Being and providentially crafted obviously apply only to a Person. But, more than just establishing that the Creator is a Person, the findings about design provide evidence of what that Person is like. One characteristic that stands out dramatically in His interest and care for living things and particularly for the human race.
For example, the mass density of the universe determines how efficiently nuclear fusion operates in the cosmos. As Table 5 indicates, if the mass density is too great, too much deuterium (a heavy isotope of hydrogen with one proton and one neutron in the nucleus) is made in the first few minutes of the universe's existence. This extra deuterium will cause all the stars to burn much too quickly and erratically for any of them to sup-port a planet with life upon it. On the other hand, if the mass density is too small, so little deuterium and helium is made in the first few minutes that the heavier elements necessary for life will never form in the stars. What this means is that the approximately one hundred billion trillion stars we observe in the universe, no more and no less, are needed for life to be possible in the universe. Evidently, God cared so much for living creatures that He constructed a hundred billion trillion stars and carefully crafted them throughout the age of the universe so that at this brief moment in the history of the cosmos humans could exist and have a pleasant place to live. Of all the gods of the various religions of the world, only the God of the Bible is revealed as investing this much (and more) in humanity.
It is not just the universe that bears evidence for design. The sun and the earth also reveal such evidence. Frank Drake, Carl Sagan, and Iosef Shklovsky were among the first astronomers to make this point. They attempted to estimate the number of planets (in the universe) with environments favorable for life support. In the early 1960s they recognized that a certain kind of star with a planet just the right distance from that star would provide the necessary conditions for life.119 On this basis they made optimistic estimates for the probability of finding life elsewhere in the universe. Shklovsky and Sagan, for example, claimed that 0.001 percent of all stars could have a planet capable of supporting advanced life.120
While their analysis was a step in the right direction, it overestimated the range of permissible star types and the range of permissible planetary distances. It also ignored many other significant factors. Some sample parameters sensitive for the support of life are listed in Table 6.
Table 6: Evidence for the design of the sun-earth-moon system121 -139
1. galaxy type
* if too elliptical: star formation ceases before sufficient heavy element buildup for life chemistry
* if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion is too severe and/or heavy elements for life chemistry are not available.
2. parent star distance from center of galaxy
* if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets.
* if closer: stellar density and radiation would be too great.
3. number of stars in the planetary system
* if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits.
* if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life.
4. parent star birth date
* if more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase.
* if less recent: stellar system would not yet contain enough heavy elements.
5. parent star age
* if older: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
* if younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
6. parent star mass
* if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would bum too rapidly.
* if less: range of distances appropriate for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the rotational period for a planet of the right distance; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen.
7. parent star color
* if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
* if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
8. supernovae eruptions
* if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated.
* if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.
* if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.
* if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated.
9. white dwarf binaries
* if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed
* if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated
* 10. surface gravity (escape velocity)
* if stronger: atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane.
* if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water.
11. distance from parent star
* if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle.
* if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle.
12. inclination of orbit
* if too great: temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme.
13. orbital eccentricity
* if too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.
14. axial tilt
* if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great.
* if less: surface temperature differences would be too great.
15. rotation period
* if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great.
* if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.
16. gravitational interaction with a moon
* if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe.
* if less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities.
17. magnetic field
* if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe.
* if weaker: inadequate protection from hard stellar radiation.
18. thickness of crust
* if thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust.
* if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great.
19. albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)
* if greater: runaway ice age would develop.
* if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
20. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere
* if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly.
* if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly.
21. carbon dioxide level in atmosphere
* if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
* if less: plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis.
22. water vapor level in atmosphere
* if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
* if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land.
23. ozone level in atmosphere
* if greater: surface temperatures would be too low.
* if less: surface temperatures would be too high; there would be too much uv radiation at the surface.
24. atmospheric electric discharge rate
* if greater: too much fire destruction would occur.
* if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere.
25. oxygen quantity in atmosphere
* if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would bum up too easily.
* if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe.
* 26. oceans to continents ratio
* if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
* if smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
27. soil mineralization
* if too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
* if too nutrient rich: diversity and complexity of life-forms would he limited.
28. seismic activity
* if greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed.
* if less: nutrients on ocean floors (from river runoff) would not be recycled to the continents through tectonic uplift.
Each of these 28 parameters cannot exceed certain limits without disturbing a planet's capacity to support life. For some, the limits have been measured quite precisely. This is typically the case for the stellar parameters. For others, the limits are more uncertain. This is typically the case for planetary parameters. Trillions of stars are available for study and star formation is quite well understood and observed. On the other hand, only nine planets can be studied, and though a fairly good theory of planetary formation is available, the details have yet to be worked out, nor can planetary formation be fully observed.
To get a feel for how confining these limits can be, the least confining would be parameters #1, #3, and #12 which would eliminate respectively 30%, 60%, and 20% of all candidates from contention. More confining would be parameters such as #2, #13, #15, and #19 which eliminate respectively about 80%, 90%, 90%, 90%, and 90% of all candidates from contention. Most confining of all would be parameters such as #6, #9, #11, #18, #21, and #25 which eliminate respectively about 99.9%, 99.9%, 99.9%, 99%, 99%, and 99% of all candidates from contention.
Of course, not all of the listed parameters are strictly independent of the others. Dependency factors could reduce the degree of confinement considerably. On the other hand, all these parameters must be kept within their limits for the total time spans needed for the support of life on a candidate planet. This will increase the degree of confinement.
About a dozen more parameters, such as the atmospheric transparency, atmospheric pressure, atmospheric temperature gradient, other greenhouse gases, location of different gases and minerals, and mantle and core constituents and structures, currently are being researched for their sensitivity in the support of life. However, the 28 listed in Table 6 in themselves lead safely to the conclusion that much fewer than a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent of all stars will have a planet capable of sustaining advanced life. Considering that the observable universe contains less than a trillion galaxies, each averaging a hundred billion stars,j we can see the not even one planet would be expected, by natural processes alone, to possess the necessary conditions to sustain life.k No wonder Robert Rood and James Trefil,121 among others,140 have surmised that intelligent physical life exists only on the earth.
It seems abundantly clear that the earth, too, in addition to the universe, has experienced divine design. Evidently, personal intervention on the part of the Creator takes place not just at the origin of the universe but also at much more recent times.http://www.origins.org/articles/ross_astroevidgodbible.html#design%20parameters
Nice copy-pasta Glock,
However, it is no proof of design, as the 'Many universe' (also known as 'multi-verse') theory says that as every eventuality can happen at the quantum level, then such vaules for the 'strong' force, the 'weak' force, the 'gravity' force ect are inevitable.
Now care you to answer the OP, rather than c and p?
glockmail
11-13-2009, 09:04 PM
Its very simple Noir. In order for our solar system to exist to sustain life dozens of physical parameters have to exist within narrow ranges. Multiply them all up and the chance of occurrence is about a trillion times less than thee are solar systems. So the analogy earlier of walking into a room with cards set in a perfect hand is valid.
Its very simple Noir. In order for our solar system to exist to sustain life dozens of physical parameters have to exist within narrow ranges. Multiply them all up and the chance of occurrence is about a trillion times less than thee are solar systems. So the analogy earlier of walking into a room with cards set in a perfect hand is valid.
Wrong Sir, nothing about this is simple, because nothing about quantum mechanics is simple.
As i said, the 'multi-verse' theory means that chance, no matter how small, over an infinate time is certain.
Also, how many solar systems are there in the Universe? As you claim to know, and while i have seen guesses, these guesses are very rough, and more than doubled in the past few years to something like 10X10^20.
And as i said before, the card dealer analogy is a very poor one, as it over simplifies the role of a designer, by making him no more than a human, not like the impossibly complex creature he would need to be,
Now, you exemplify the problem i was pointing out in the OP, you see everything as too complex, and the only way to seem to be able to explain something so complex in the universe is by, ironicly, postulating the existance of a god many times more complex.
Missileman
11-13-2009, 09:53 PM
Wrong Sir, nothing about this is simple, because nothing about quantum mechanics is simple.
As i said, the 'multi-verse' theory means that chance, no matter how small, over an infinate time is certain.
Also, how many solar systems are there in the Universe? As you claim to know, and while i have seen guesses, these guesses are very rough, and more than doubled in the past few years to something like 10X10^20.
And as i said before, the card dealer analogy is a very poor one, as it over simplifies the role of a designer, by making him no more than a human, not like the impossibly complex creature he would need to be,
Now, you exemplify the problem i was pointing out in the OP, you see everything as too complex, and the only way to seem to be able to explain something so complex in the universe is by, ironicly, postulating the existance of a god many times more complex.
Glock's been getting his science info from a thumper site again. The exact opposite of what he claimed is true. Odds are there are millions of planets in the universe capable of sustaining life.
PostmodernProphet
11-15-2009, 10:15 PM
As i said, the 'multi-verse' theory means that chance, no matter how small, over an infinate time is certain.
Also, how many solar systems are there in the Universe? As you claim to know, and while i have seen guesses, these guesses are very rough, and more than doubled in the past few years to something like 10X10^20.
well, actually not, Noir....you see, science tells us that the possibility of any single solar system containing a planet that could support life is either 2, 1, or 0.....with the highest probability being 0.....
the only way a solar system could have two planets that could support life is if the two were in totally opposite orbits around the sun.....the only way a solar system could have one planet that could support life is if it falls within a perfect balance of many different factors....the vast majority of solar systems will fail to provide one or more of those factors.....
well, actually not, Noir....you see, science tells us that the possibility of any single solar system containing a planet that could support life is either 2, 1, or 0.....with the highest probability being 0.....
the only way a solar system could have two planets that could support life is if the two were in totally opposite orbits around the sun.....the only way a solar system could have one planet that could support life is if it falls within a perfect balance of many different factors....the vast majority of solar systems will fail to provide one or more of those factors.....
Indeedy, the chances may be very very very very very small. However, at the min there is estimated to be 2x10^11 galaxies, and each galaxy has about 1x10^9 stars,
200,000,000,000 galaxies, each with say 1,000,000,000 stars, thats about 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in total, each of which can support life.
emmett
11-15-2009, 10:52 PM
ROFLMAO
You guys should know just from discussing this issue with Noir that there is / or least was most certainly life on another planet somewhere.....
but then he came here and joined DP.
PostmodernProphet
11-16-2009, 07:53 AM
each of which can support life.
ah, but there is the rub....each of which might support life, but it is also true that the highest probability for each is that it won't support life.....if you want to be strictly mathematical about your approach you will have to acknowledge that since the probability of life on any one such planet is 0 you would have to multiply your number of stars times 0 and live with the result.......the likelihood of finding another planet that supports life is in fact 0......
chesswarsnow
11-16-2009, 08:14 AM
Sorry bout that,
1. What if theres a planet on the other side of the sun?
2. That we have never seen?
3. And its name is Heaven?
4. Has anyone ever bothered to look there?
5. As long as it stayed on the other side of it, we would never know it was there.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
ah, but there is the rub....each of which might support life, but it is also true that the highest probability for each is that it won't support life.....if you want to be strictly mathematical about your approach you will have to acknowledge that since the probability of life on any one such planet is 0 you would have to multiply your number of stars times 0 and live with the result.......the likelihood of finding another planet that supports life is in fact 0......
Ofcourse very few will be able to support life, but even if you say that 99.9999999999999% of the 2x10^21 soloar systems don't support life, that still leaves you with with 20 000 000, 20 million planets! (if my math is right lol, [(2x10^21) x (1x10^-13)]
Ofcourse we may be so spread out through space and time that no two pools of life ever meet, a sad thought indeed,
PostmodernProphet
11-16-2009, 10:32 AM
Ofcourse very few will be able to support life, but even if you say that 99.9999999999999% of the 2x10^21 soloar systems don't support life, that still leaves you with with 20 000 000, 20 million planets! (if my math is right lol, [(2x10^21) x (1x10^-13)]
Ofcourse we may be so spread out through space and time that no two pools of life ever meet, a sad thought indeed,
Noir....what is 1 times 0?.......what is (2x10^21) times 0?........no mathematical calculation available will produce the result you wish......because you simply cannot say that .000000000000003% WILL support life......
Missileman
11-16-2009, 11:43 AM
ROFL...more thumper pseudo-science. PMP claiming the probability for life on any planet is zero. Life on earth blows that "theory" right out of the water.
ROFL...more thumper pseudo-science. PMP claiming the probability for life on any planet is zero. Life on earth blows that "theory" right out of the water.
Exactly.
glockmail
11-16-2009, 01:13 PM
Wrong Sir, nothing about this is simple, because nothing about quantum mechanics is simple.
As i said, the 'multi-verse' theory means that chance, no matter how small, over an infinate time is certain.
Also, how many solar systems are there in the Universe? As you claim to know, and while i have seen guesses, these guesses are very rough, and more than doubled in the past few years to something like 10X10^20.
And as i said before, the card dealer analogy is a very poor one, as it over simplifies the role of a designer, by making him no more than a human, not like the impossibly complex creature he would need to be,
Now, you exemplify the problem i was pointing out in the OP, you see everything as too complex, and the only way to seem to be able to explain something so complex in the universe is by, ironicly, postulating the existance of a god many times more complex.
From my earlier link:
As amazing as it may seem, astronomers and physicists have a good understanding of the development of the universe back to when it was only 10-34) second old. We may see some
probing back to 10-34 seconds, but that represents the practical limit of research.
American astrophysicist Richard Gott has taken advantage of this infinitesimal period about which we know nothing. He proposes that there is an infinite loss of information about events before10-43 seconds. With this total loss of information, he says, anything becomes possible, including "the ability to make an infinite number of universes."75 In this "possibility" for an infinite number of universes, some non-theists see an opportunity to replace God with chance, or, more specifically, with random fluctuations of a primeval radiation field.
This question remains, however: If the universe had zero information before 10-43 seconds, how did it acquire its subsequent high information state without the input of an intelligent, personal Creator? A personal Creator is required, too, to explain the existence of the primeval radiation field.
For centuries atheists and agnostics have mocked Christians for their "God of the gaps," that is, for invoking divine miracles wherever gaps were encountered in man's understanding of the physical universe. Now we are seeing the reverse situation, the "chance of the gaps." It seems that scientists (and others) are relying on gaps, and in this case a very minute one, to give them a way around the obvious theistic implications of scientifically established facts. Surely, the burden of proof lies with those who suggest that physical conditions and physical laws were totally different in the period before 10-43 seconds.
Indeedy Glock, both science and religion have gaps, the differnce is that religion does not seek the answer, because it already believes it has the answer, whereas science evolves and finds the answer.
The very fact that you have the gaul to mock science, as they can only so far look into billioniths of a second after the bigbang but not before, when as your own arguement postulates that therefore their must have been a god there to create everything, is simply stone-age thinking.
Religion: It is the way it is, accept it and thats that.
Science: Discover, learn and test, never stop questioning, and be glad when you are proved wrong.
I know which i put my faith in,
I have also been watching lectures on computer design, 3D virtual chips, and the theroy of One, which all suggest that the Signularity may be understood within the next few decades (2040 was the date given) and once it is understood, the very feild inwhich this debate is being had may be very different indeed.
PostmodernProphet
11-16-2009, 01:42 PM
ROFL...more thumper pseudo-science. PMP claiming the probability for life on any planet is zero. Life on earth blows that "theory" right out of the water.
???....the "probability" is akin to zero....the "possibility" is not.......as you approach and examine each solar system, mathematics and physics combine to tell you that you will "probably" not find a life supporting planet....that does not mean it isn't "possible".......
???....the "probability" is akin to zero....the "possibility" is not.......as you approach and examine each solar system, mathematics and physics combine to tell you that you will "probably" not find a life supporting planet....that does not mean it isn't "possible".......
So the probability is zero, but the possibility is not zero,
Erm, dude, I think you need a refresher course in mathmatics.
Nukeman
11-16-2009, 02:26 PM
So the probability is zero, but the possibility is not zero,
Erm, dude, I think you need a refresher course in mathmatics.
Ummm NO all things are "possible" just not "probable"!!!!!!!!!!!!
Its possible you will spontaniously combust in the next 10 minutes but not probable!!!!!
Ummm NO all things are "possible" just not "probable"!!!!!!!!!!!!
Its possible you will spontaniously combust in the next 10 minutes but not probable!!!!!
So then why was PMP asking me to multiply by 0 a few posts ago? (meaning impossible)
As I said, even if the probability is only 0.00000000000001% that still leaves 20 million odd planets in our known universe.
Nukeman
11-16-2009, 02:32 PM
So then why was PMP asking me to multiply by 0 a few posts ago? (meaning impossible)
As I said, even if the probability is only 0.00000000000001% that still leaves 20 million odd planets in our known universe.
To have exacting specification and perameters for life to exist!!!!!!!
But that wasn't the post you quoted you told him he needed a refresher course and I showed you that you were mistaken....
Missileman
11-16-2009, 02:39 PM
To have exacting specification and perameters for life to exist!!!!!!!
But that wasn't the post you quoted you told him he needed a refresher course and I showed you that you were mistaken....
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest a planet has to be EXACTLY like ours to sustain life. This exacting specifications and parameters argument is more pseudo-science from the evangelical IDers.
Nukeman
11-16-2009, 06:09 PM
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest a planet has to be EXACTLY like ours to sustain life. This exacting specifications and parameters argument is more pseudo-science from the evangelical IDers.
Never said otherwise!!!
I was however correcting Noir on the use of possible vs probable......
Nice of you to lump everyone together!!!???!?!?:coffee:
Missileman
11-16-2009, 06:22 PM
Never said otherwise!!!
I was however correcting Noir on the use of possible vs probable......
Nice of you to lump everyone together!!!???!?!?:coffee:
My post wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, it was aimed at proponents of "exacting specifications and parameters" arguments. The myriad of environs where life thrives on earth is evidence that the window is pretty large.
PostmodernProphet
11-16-2009, 07:16 PM
So then why was PMP asking me to multiply by 0 a few posts ago? (meaning impossible)
As I said, even if the probability is only 0.00000000000001% that still leaves 20 million odd planets in our known universe.
you miss the point......it is still improbable that those 20 million odd planets will support life.....when one of the possibilities is 0 you cannot pretend that you can mathematically calculate the number of planets which "probably" have life.....
PostmodernProphet
11-16-2009, 07:18 PM
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest a planet has to be EXACTLY like ours to sustain life. This exacting specifications and parameters argument is more pseudo-science from the evangelical IDers.
uh, Miss?......speculating that a completely different lifeform could exist is no less pseudo-science than speculating a deity capable of creating a life-form could exist.....
Noir....what is 1 times 0?.......what is (2x10^21) times 0?........no mathematical calculation available will produce the result you wish......because you simply cannot say that .000000000000003% WILL support life......
There seems to have been some confusion along the way, so i wana make this point clear,
by suggesting that i multiply by 0 you are saying that life on another planet is impossible. Infact using your own twisted logic, there would also be no life on this planet.
Now i'm not saying that life is common, i would guess its very very very rare, but even if it were so rare as on only happen on 1 out of every 10,000,000,000,000 (which you have to admint are pretty bad odds) then there would still be 20,000,000 planets out there that could support life (by our current estimates of planets in the universe)
You must not try and introduce 0 as a 'nearest number' option, as this example shows, even the tinyest odds make a massive difference because of the sheer size of known space,
glockmail
11-16-2009, 07:21 PM
Indeedy Glock, both science and religion have gaps, the differnce is that religion does not seek the answer, because it already believes it has the answer, whereas science evolves and finds the answer.
The very fact that you have the gaul to mock science, as they can only so far look into billioniths of a second after the bigbang but not before, when as your own arguement postulates that therefore their must have been a god there to create everything, is simply stone-age thinking.
Religion: It is the way it is, accept it and thats that.
Science: Discover, learn and test, never stop questioning, and be glad when you are proved wrong.
I know which i put my faith in,
I have also been watching lectures on computer design, 3D virtual chips, and the theroy of One, which all suggest that the Signularity may be understood within the next few decades (2040 was the date given) and once it is understood, the very feild inwhich this debate is being had may be very different indeed.
What I find amazing about your reasoning is that you have made up your mind that religion is closed minded. How ironic.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.