I am definitely not trying to "trick" anyone and, as far as I know, my numbers are solid. And for the record, I have retracted a few of my numbers on the 666 thread. If they're wrong, I'm willing to back down. Again, these parameters were all discovered by astronomers and as we all know astronomers are not by any stretch of the imagination 100% theistic. As far as I know, these numbers apply unless you want to talk about weird, sci fi energy based life or something, fine. But if you're talking about hard science, i.e. carbon based life, then these parameters hold. Keep in mind that carbon is the only molecule - silicon can only be strung together for only about 100 molecules - that is capable of information storage other than boron, which is extremely rare. The only possible argument that I can see with the #s is 1) statistical dependencies (and I think that is a weak argument at best) and 2) minor tweaking of each factor. I genuinely believe neither #1 or #2 changes this fact, that is that carbon-based life in our universe is ultra unlikely.
I genuinely believe neither #1 or #2 changes this fact, that is that carbon-based life in our universe is ultra unlikely. Read what you just said several times You cant see the forest through the trees shoe. Carbon based life in our universe is 100% likely because IT ALREADY HAPPENED. You are simply rejecting reality here beyond belief. Once again I will state that all these designer arguments are nothing more than a weak hypothesis WITH ZERO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. They are no better than my hypothesis that yesterdays big dump I took created the universe. Without a SHRED of evidence to support this hypothesis it is nothing more than words which carry NO weight. UNLIKE scientific hypothesis and theories which DO have supporting evidence, models, etc, which can be verified, tested, and falsified. The god arguments stand apart in a completely different domain. The domain of fairy tales. They do not even remotely qualify as scientific by an means. peace axeman
Actually, Axe, the context of what I was saying was simply this: "it is unlikely (very unlikely in my opinion) that there will be life anywhere else in the unverse based on necessary advanced life property requirements." I wasn't using it as an argument for theism, etc. Are you arguing that it is likely they'll find life in the universe?
I don't see what the big deal about the numbers are. Take the magnetic field parameter: All I'm saying is that the magnetic field of a planet must be within a reasonable range. If you have too strong of a field, you'll have brutal emag storms; if you have too low of a field, the planet receives inadequate protection from radiation. Again, I don't see what it is so objectionable about applying a reasonable probability to this parameter, i.e. % of planets/stars with this situation, and then estimating the likelihood of an advanced life planet...
The problem is that you are making MASSIVE assumptions on what kinds of life can exist. For example... there are certain plants which exist only at the top of Mt. Kilimanjaro where no other plant can survive due to the additional radiation from the sun. Thin atmosphere. They have adopted to this in several ways and have no problem surviving these conditions. One day we may find life on a planet with a crazy magnet field that OUR kind of life could not survive in. But obviously, life which EVOLVES in such a magnetic field has the ability to survive in it. Im not arguing for or against life elsewhere in the universe. I am honest enough to admit that I have NO WHERE NEAR enough data to even begin computing the probability of this. Life COULD evolve elsewhere in the universe in ways no human has ever even considered, and in environments no human would even consider life evolving even remotely possible. We simply dont know. Before you can even begin calculating any sort of probability you have to make a TON of assumptions, as you have. peace axeman
I think youâre underestimating the importance of our magnetic field. As you know, I described the âmiracleâ of the lunar event in a previous thread. One very fortunate result of the collision of the Mars-sized planet with the Earth is the presence of the Earth's large and heavy metallic core which left us with the highest density of any of the planets in our Solar System. This large nickel-iron core is responsible for our large magnetic field which is named the Van-Allen radiation shield. It is this shield which protects the Earth from radiation bombardment. If this shield were not present, advanced life would simply not be possible on the Earth. Mercury is the other planet to have any significant magnetic field and it is less than 1% of our own. Marsâ for example is < .1% of earthâs.
But let's go to another example if you wonât accept that one: Axial tilt. The way I see it there's no argument over this one. Surface temperatures would be much brutal if axial tilt was adjusted significantly either way. Surely youâre not arguing that advanced life can survive on a planet with astronomical temperatures?
I mean can you at least admit that life in such situations would be brutally difficult and unimaginable iwith current scientific knowledge?
And how many theologians discovered the computer, space flight, vaccinations, or genetic engineering? It's a pithy little saying but it's completely wrong.