Cohen Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 I've gotten into a discussion about this with a friend who is of the opinion that it is impossible for any Earth like planet to exist without divine intervention. Although I am a theist also I do not believe this is the case but when pressed I realised I can't actually back that opinion up (in hindsight it was probably bad scientific form to accept that view without prior evidence, oh well, live and let learn I suppose). Some Googling has found me the opinions of Dr. Charles H. Lineweaver and Professor Barrie Jones but it's all in the form of new reports and articles. Does anybody know where I can find their material online or at least a mathematical overview of their work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 It's more unscientific of him to unilaterally rule it out tbh, particularly if his reasoning only involves derivations of religious texts. Knowledge.com has an excellent database of resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 *sigh* the universe is infinite. To think that there is no chance in an infinite cosmos for a similar planet to develop is silly, to imaging God (or whatever) created the entire infinite universe just for one tiny planet to have something to look at is childishly absurd. It's also immensely egotistical, and has no shred of corroborating evidence in the Christian bible. If anything, the bible infers there are a great many other places that life exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cohen Posted June 10, 2004 Author Share Posted June 10, 2004 He's basing it on this site: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/20020502_life_support_body_prob.shtml?main (you'll need to sign up for free to view the content though here http://www.reasons.org/amember/signup.php) which puts the probability at: Thus, less than 1 chance in 10215 (one hundred billion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such planet would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. Thanks for the link though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 What's the reasoning for that number? (I am not signing up to that site, no way.) He must realise that is a horribly, horribly biased source for ANY kind of information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 He's basing it on this site: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/20020502_life_support_body_prob.shtml?main (you'll need to sign up for free to view the content though here http://www.reasons.org/amember/signup.php) which puts the probability at: Thanks for the link though. There. Is. No. Way. I. Will. Sign. Up. To. That. Site. Ever. Thanks for playing. That 'theory' is a bastardized version of the drakes equasion:- http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html that creationist websites theory is used to convince the people who want to be convinced that the warm fuffy bunny god created a wittle gawden for them to play in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cohen Posted June 10, 2004 Author Share Posted June 10, 2004 Haha, understandable, from the site: An Estimate of the Probability for Attaining the Necessary Parameters for Life Support1-85 Parameter Probability that feature will Fall in the required range for physical life local abundance and distribution of dark matter 0.1 relative abundances of different exotic mass particles 0.01 decay rates of different exotic mass particles 0.05 density of quasars 0.1 density of giant galaxies in the early universe 0.1 galaxy cluster size 0.1 galaxy cluster density 0.1 galaxy cluster location 0.1 galaxy size 0.1 galaxy type 0.1 galaxy mass distribution 0.2 size of galactic central bulge 0.2 galaxy location 0.1 variability of local dwarf galaxy absorption rate 0.1 quantity of galactic dust 0.1 giant star density in galaxy 0.1 rate of nearby gamma ray bursts 0.1 star location relative to galactic center 0.2 star distance from corotation circle of galaxy 0.005 ratio of inner dark halo mass to stellar mass for galaxy 0.1 star distance from closest spiral arm 0.1 z-axis extremes of star's orbit 0.02 proximity of solar nebula to a type I supernova eruption 0.01 timing of solar nebula formation relative to type I supernova eruption 0.01 proximity of solar nebula to a type II supernova eruption 0.01 timing of solar nebula formation relative to type II supernova eruption 0.01 timing of hypernovae eruptions 0.2 number of hypernovae eruptions 0.1 masses of stars that become hypernovae 0.1 flux of cosmic ray protons 0.1 variability of cosmic ray proton flux 0.1 gas dispersal rate by companion stars, shock waves, and molecular cloud expansion in the Sun's birthing star cluster 0.1 number of stars in birthing cluster 0.01 star formation rate in parent star vicinity during history of that star 0.1 variation in star formation rate in parent star vicinity during history of that star 0.1 birth date of the star-planetary system 0.01 number of stars in system 0.7 number and timing of close encounters by nearby stars 0.01 proximity of close stellar encounters 0.1 masses of close stellar encounters 0.1 density of brown dwarfs 0.1 distance from nearest black hole 0.2 absorption rate of planets and planetismals by parent star 0.1 star age 0.4 star metallicity 0.05 ratio of 40K, 235,238U, 232Th to iron in star-planetary system 0.02 star orbital eccentricity 0.1 star mass 0.001 star luminosity change relative to speciation types & rates 0.00001 star color 0.4 star rotation rate 0.3 rate of change in star rotation rate 0.3 star magnetic field 0.1 star magnetic field variability 0.1 stellar wind strength and variability 0.1 short period variation in parent star diameter 0.1 star's carbon to oxygen ratio 0.01 star's space velocity relative to Local Standard of Rest 0.05 star's short term luminosity variability 0.05 star's long term luminosity variability 0.05 amplitude and duration of star spot cycle 0.1 number & timing of solar system encounters with interstellar gas clouds 0.1 galactic tidal forces on planetary system 0.2 H3+ production 0.1 supernovae rates & locations 0.01 white dwarf binary types, rates, & locations 0.01 structure of comet cloud surrounding planetary system 0.3 planetary distance from star 0.001 inclination of planetary orbit 0.5 axis tilt of planet 0.3 rate of change of axial tilt 0.01 period and size of axis tilt variation 0.1 planetary rotation period 0.1 rate of change in planetary rotation period 0.05 planetary revolution period 0.2 planetary orbit eccentricity 0.3 rate of change of planetary orbital eccentricity 0.1 rate of change of planetary inclination 0.5 period and size of eccentricity variation 0.1 period and size of inclination variation 0.1 precession in planet's rotation 0.3 rate of change in planet's precession 0.3 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon abundance in solar nebula 0.1 number of moons 0.2 mass and distance of moon 0.01 surface gravity (escape velocity) 0.001 tidal force from sun and moon 0.1 magnetic field 0.01 rate of change & character of change in magnetic field 0.1 albedo (planet reflectivity) 0.1 density 0.1 density of interstellar and interplanetary dust particles in vicinity of life-support planet 0.3 reducing strength of planet's primordial mantle 0.3 thickness of crust 0.01 timing of birth of continent formation 0.1 oceans-to-continents ratio 0.2 rate of change in oceans to continents ratio 0.1 global distribution of continents 0.3 frequency, timing, & extent of ice ages 0.1 frequency, timing, & extent of global snowball events 0.1 silicate dust annealing by nebular shocks 0.02 asteroidal & cometary collision rate 0.1 change in asteroidal & cometary collision rates 0.1 rate of change in asteroidal & cometary collision rates 0.1 mass of body colliding with primordial Earth 0.002 timing of body colliding with primordial Earth 0.05 location of body's collision with primordial Earth 0.05 position & mass of Jupiter relative to Earth 0.01 major planet eccentricities 0.1 major planet orbital instabilities 0.05 drift and rate of drift in major planet distances 0.05 number & distribution of planets 0.01 distance of gas giant planets from mean motion resonances 0.02 orbital separation distances among inner planets 0.01 mass of Neptune 0.1 total mass of Kuiper Belt asteroids 0.1 mass distribution of Kuiper Belt asteroids 0.2 average rainfall precipitation 0.01 variation and timing of average rainfall precipitation 0.01 atmospheric transparency 0.01 atmospheric pressure 0.01 atmospheric viscosity 0.1 atmospheric electric discharge rate 0.01 atmospheric temperature gradient 0.01 carbon dioxide level in atmosphere 0.01 rate of change in carbon dioxide level in atmosphere 0.1 rate of change in water vapor level in atmosphere 0.01 rate of change in methane level in early atmosphere 0.01 oxygen quantity in atmosphere 0.01 nitrogen quantity in atmosphere 0.01 carbon monoxide quantity in atmosphere 0.1 chlorine quantity in atmosphere 0.1 aerosol particle density emitted from forests 0.05 cobalt quantity in crust 0.1 arsenic quantity in crust 0.1 copper quantity in crust 0.1 boron quantity in crust 0.1 flourine quantity in crust 0.1 iodine quantity in crust 0.1 manganese quantity in crust 0.1 nickel quantity in crust 0.1 phosphorus quantity in crust 0.1 tin quantity in crust 0.1 zinc quantity in crust 0.1 molybdenum quantity in crust 0.05 vanadium quantity in crust 0.1 chromium quantity in crust 0.1 selenium quantity in crust 0.1 iron quantity in oceans 0.1 tropospheric ozone quantity 0.01 stratospheric ozone quantity 0.01 mesospheric ozone quantity 0.01 water vapor level in atmosphere 0.01 oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere 0.1 quantity of greenhouse gases in atmosphere 0.01 rate of change in greenhouse gases in atmosphere 0.01 poleward heat transport in planet's atmosphere 0.2 quantity of forest & grass fires 0.01 quantity of sea salt aerosols 0.1 soil mineralization 0.1 quantity of anaeorbic bacteria in the oceans 0.01 quantity of aerobic bacteria in the oceans 0.01 quantity of anaerobic nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the early oceans 0.01 quantity, variety, and timing of sulfate-reducing bacteria 0.00001 quantity of geobacteraceae 0.01 quantity of aerobic photoheterotrophic bacteria 0.01 quantity of decomposer bacteria in soil 0.01 quantity of mycorrhizal fungi in soil 0.01 quantity of nitrifying microbes in soil 0.01 quantity & timing of vascular plant introductions 0.001 quantity, timing, & placement of carbonate-producing animals 0.00001 quantity, timing, & placement of methanogens 0.00001 phosphorus and iron absorption by banded iron formations 0.01 quantity of soil sulfur 0.1 ratio of electrically conducting inner core radius to radius of the adjacent turbulent fluid shell 0.2 ratio of core to shell (see above) magnetic diffusivity 0.2 magnetic Reynold's number of the shell (see above) 0.2 elasticity of iron in the inner core 0.2 electromagnetic Maxwell shear stresses in the inner core 0.2 core precession frequency for planet 0.1 rate of interior heat loss for planet 0.01 quantity of sulfur in the planet'score 0.1 quantity of silicon in the planet's core 0.1 quantity of water at subduction zones in the crust 0.01 quantity of high pressure ice in subducting crustal slabs 0.1 hydration rate of subducted minerals 0.1 water absorption capacity of planet's lower mantle 0.1 tectonic activity 0.05 rate of decline in tectonic activity 0.1 volcanic activity 0.1 rate of decline in volcanic activity 0.1 location of volcanic eruptions 0.1 continental relief 0.1 viscosity at Earth core boundaries 0.01 viscosity of lithosphere 0.2 thickness of mid-mantle boundary 0.1 rate of sedimentary loading at crustal subduction zones 0.1 biomass to comet infall ratio 0.01 regularity of cometary infall 0.1 number, intensity, and location of hurricanes 0.02 dependency factors estimate ≈ 10^39 longevity requirements estimate ≈ 10^13 Probability for occurrence of all 200 parameters ≈ 10^237 Maximum possible number of planets in universe ≈ 10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^215 (one hundred billion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such planet would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. This is then followed by a particullarly mammoth list of referances. I would expect the way to debunk such an estimate would be to question that figure about maximum number of planets in the universe and the neccessity of some of those parameters or their accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 that creationist websites theory is used to convince the people who want to be convinced that the warm fuffy bunny god created a wittle gawden for them to play in. Not really - if people want to believe in Genesis, they will do regardless of anything else. It's more for people who wish to believe that religious stories must exclude any other possibility. What the modern advocates of creationism are trying to do is show that nothing science says can apply, because of their interpretations of a particular bit of text they like and the avoidance of any other. This is a non-sustainable movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Haha' date=' understandable, from the site: This is then followed by a particullarly mammoth list of referances. I would expect the way to debunk such an estimate would be to question that figure about maximum number of planets in the universe and the neccessity of some of those parameters or their accuracy.[/quote'] That doesn't even make basic sense. The list could include toster ovens 0.1, marshmellow quantity 0.1 and it would be closer to what they are hoping to achive. Look up Drakes equasion, or follow the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 I would expect the way to debunk such an estimate would be to question that figure about maximum number of planets in the universe and the neccessity of some of those parameters or their accuracy. Or to point out that: 1) Most of the factors have incorrect probabilities, 2) Most of the factors are irrelevant, 3) The factors that are relevant are for a planet that is IDENTICAL to Earth in virtually every way, and not an "Earth-like" planet. That calc is wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cohen Posted June 10, 2004 Author Share Posted June 10, 2004 Thanks for your help, I think I can write a decent enough reply now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Not really - if people want to believe in Genesis' date=' they will do regardless of anything else. It's more for people who wish to believe that religious stories must exclude any other possibility.[/quote'] That the same point really, if people want to believe in Genesis or a giant crab god they will look for people to spoon feed them reasons why they should. The creationists just like bastardizing and twisting scientific theories to make a point. I have no idea why they think science is an actual living creature that they must attempt to defeat. I suppose the must first champion ignorance before they can introduce childish doctrine that is in reality a dumbed down version of the gospel of the christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 That the same point really, if people want to believe in Genesis or a giant crab god they will look for people to spoon feed them reasons why they should. It's not the same point at all. Creationism is not a passive transfer of information; it's an active attempt to "prove" A by refuting B, which is non sequitur logic. Creationism removes freedom of choice and also defeats the purpose of faith. The creationists just like bastardizing and twisting scientific theories to make a point. I have no idea why they think science is an actual living creature that they must attempt to defeat. I suppose the must first champion ignorance before they can introduce childish doctrine that is in reality a dumbed down version of the gospel of the christ. Quite (well, with the exception that creationism goes beyond "telling people a story".) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 which puts the probability at:"Thus' date=' less than 1 chance in 10215 (one hundred billion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such planet would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles." [/quote'] Note that the actual probability of one (or more) earth-like planets existing in the universe is 1. The probablility of an event that has happened is one. You cannot go back and calculate a probability to show that the event did not actually occur. If that were valid, it would be trivial to demostrate that your friend was never born, using the number of sperm and eggs involved, and the liklihood that various ancestors met and got married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Errr... I think that's the point. That's why "...without invoking divine miracles" is tacked on the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 It's not the same point at all. Creationism is not a passive transfer of information; it's an active attempt to "prove" A by refuting B' date=' which is non sequitur logic. Creationism removes freedom of choice and also defeats the purpose of faith.[/quote'] that creationist websites theory is used to convince the people who want to be convinced that the warm fuffy bunny god created a wittle gawden for them to play in. if people want to believe in Genesis, they will do regardless of anything else. It's more for people who wish to believe that religious stories must exclude any other possibility. That the same point really, if people want to believe in Genesis or a giant crab god they will look for people to spoon feed them reasons why they should. I've edited the quotes to show the parts I was specifically referring to. The only differing opinion seems to be that you believe that creationists will think what they think regardless of outside opinion, where I'm saying that no man is an island. Every person looks for information to support the supposition they adhere to. Am I the only one to think the phrase 'non sequitur logic' is getting much overuse around here, along with words like 'strawman', 'tautology' and so on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 I've edited the quotes to show the parts I was specifically referring to. The only differing opinion seems to be that you believe that creationists will think what they think regardless of outside opinion' date=' where I'm saying that no man is an island. Every person looks for information to support the supposition they adhere to.[/quote'] No, the difference is that you are attributing "the people who want to be convinced that the warm fuffy bunny god created a wittle gawden for them to play in" as a defining element of a creationist audience (they are common both to passive religious teaching and the more fascist methods employed by some creationists), whereas I am attributing the actual mechanisms in the same role. [edit - I should really have said we're aiming for the same conclusion, it's the actual arguments that are different.] Am I the only one to think the phrase 'non sequitur logic' is getting much overuse around here, along with words like 'strawman', 'tautology' and so on? How do you define "over-use"? Unless it's something along the lines of "using the correct terms to describe something", then you probably are the only one. It's in the nature of members in a science and debate community to identify such problems with proposals and arguments. The reason straw man and tautology come up so much is because they are used that much. Non sequitur quite literally is one of the most common occurences in cause-and-effect discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 How do you define "over-use"? Unless it's something along the lines of "using the correct word to describe something"' date=' then you probably [i']are[/i] the only one. I was thinking more along the lines of using an old dead language in the middle of a sentence written in English. I wouldn't really class latin as the correct word O_o. That and flailing words around like a weapon (remember the definition of atheist arguments?). It's in the nature of members in a science and debate community to identify such problems with proposals and arguments. The reason straw man and tautology come up so much is because they are used that much. Non sequitur quite literally is one of the most common occurrences in cause-and-effect discussions. So, it's misuse I'm concerned with. I've seen the straw man accusation thrown around without much regard for context, as if it were a real word/insult and not a description. I require a law (like godwins) for the use of inappropriate descriptive words in a post, when the post is derogatory and condesending to anothers logic. Straw man > straw house > invoke wolf's law to blow it away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 I was thinking more along the lines of using an old dead language in the middle of a sentence written in English. I wouldn't really class latin as the correct word O_o. That and flailing words around like a weapon (remember the definition of atheist arguments?). I used the term "non sequitur" in the correct fashion, and the correct context, in common with the intended use of the term in modern English. If you don't like it, it's your problem. So, it's misuse I'm concerned with. See above. I've seen the straw man accusation thrown around without much regard for context, as if it were a real word/insult and not a description. It can be considered a noun. That has nothing to do with how it is apllied to an argument. I require a law (like godwins) for the use of inappropriate descriptive words in a post, when the post is derogatory and condesending to anothers logic. Straw man > straw house > invoke wolf's law to blow it away. That's up to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Errr... I think that's the point. That's why "...without invoking divine miracles" is tacked on the end. And I was just trying to demostrate why that's intellectually dishonest. You can do it with anything that's recognized as not being a miracle, if you work hard enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgerlica Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Planets are created randomly all the time. Just ask Adam! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amburlin Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Honnestly anyone should be able to look up and see the fraction of the infinate number of stars in the sky, know that each is in some way supporting to the planets as our sun is to us, and know that each will have that set of planets, some with in a distance close enough and yet far enough to maintain a neutral habitable (by our standards) climate. With the millions of chances for even this to occure, it gives relitively probable chances to the idea that there is more then one carbon based planet with mostly water in which things can live similarly to how they would on earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolarFlare Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 Some information http://www.thespacesite.com/community/index.php?showtopic=1083 New Extrasolar Planets Discovered QUOTE Astronomers announced today the first discovery of a new class of planets beyond our solar system about 10 to 20 times the size of Earth - far smaller than any previously detected. The planets make up a new class of Neptune-sized extrasolar planets. In addition, one of the new planets joins three others around the nearby star 55 Cancri to form the first known four-planet system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now