Better do that than to: 1) choose "God" option 2) lose 100M 3) yell out "oh my God what have I done!"
I could understand statements like this from you guys if you were truly arguing for agnoticism. I know you'll know what I'm talking about here: 1. The 2nd Law leads to increased disorder and increased entropy everywhere. We both know that it is considered an immutable law that in a closed system, entropy never decreases. In other words, one would expect that we would head to thermo. equilibrium. 2. Yet we find instead that the universe, in many key instances, leads to increased order and organization (galaxies, clouds, crystals, etc., etc.) A casual look at the universe, therefore, shows two possible interpretations: 1. The "multiverse". 2. Intelligent Design In fact, from my standpoint it is unarguable that there is "design", i.e. increasing organization and order "fighting" against the tidal wave of the 2nd Law. What is arguable is whether or not one feels that this "design" comes from intelligence or is just part of the properites of a self-existing multiverse. I think that statements like the above belie the fact you are arguing you have a definitive answer for something that is not patently obvious upon inspection. What I am saying is that I would much more respect your position if you were truly a skeptic and arguing relentlessly for agnosticism.
Okay, well, I have to make the assumption here that he did not suck out my vital organs and place them in a couple dozen cryonic petrie dishes for future examination. But assuming that didn't happen, I would politely excuse myself and ask if I could go get a fresh change of underwear. But not for the reasons you think. Here's why: As I've pointed out before, the odds against life being anywhere in this universe are astronomically (no pun intended of course) low. In fact, statistically speaking - yes, I know no exact probabilites can be calculated - life should not even be on planet earth in the first place. The popular press does a horrible job of disseminating the fact that science has discovered a host of properties of both the universe and our solar system that make life anywhere in the universe an ultra-low probability - and I emphasize from a non-rigorous standpoint - event. Again, there are only 10^22 stars in the universe and this much too low of a number to hope for even one advanced life planet unless of course the sytem got a little outside "help". (Yes, I said that just to annoy you.)
>this much too low of a number to hope for even >one advanced life planet unless of course the >sytem got a little outside "help". And the comparative odds of outside help existing? -- considering of course that going back far enough this "outside help" had to come into being somehow and somewhere on it's own. I lean away from the second odds primarily because they appear to me to be so much larger than the former. JB
Why? Here's one example of how that might not be true: 1. String theory is true. 2. The space/time theorem of gen. relativity applies to t=0 If the above 2 turn out to be true, then the First Cause does not have to be created. This is distinct and very real possibility. You are looking at it from a 4D standpoint only...
Why is that too low of a number? Did you plug the variables into Drake's equation? Or did you have a talk with whomever gave that "outside help". If the former, please share. If the latter, you have a Sunday morning cable TV slot waiting for you down south.
Secular scientists have come up with at least 50 "parameters" or "properties" of the universe and solar system that are prerequisites for advanced life. Here's just a few examples so you know what kind of things I'm talking about: 1. Sagan himself came up with one of them. He and another scientist observed that stars must be of a specific mass density. If the mass density is too small, then the planet must be significantly closer to the star. And tidal interactions go up exponentially with the distance closer to the star. The rotational period in this case quickly goes from days to months! (Both Mercury and Venus experience this.) A larger mass density leads to even greater problems: the star burns too quickly and erratically for advanced life. Sagan himself noted that only 1/1000 stars would have a reasonable mass density. 2. An advanced-life planet must be orbiting one and only one star. Of course, a planet ripped away from a start will be too cold and a planet orbiting a binary system will have too unstable of an orbit and will frequently pull the planet into deadly temperature zones.. Only about ¼ stars are bachelor stars. 3. Most galaxies have stellar densities that are far too high to support advanced life. If stars are too close, then their gravitational interactions would disrupt planetary orbits. And of course if the stellar density is too low, then heavy elements will be thinly distributed to produce a proper rocky planet for advanced life. 4. Most people do not realize only 5% of all galaxies are the âniceâ spiral galaxies like the Milky Way. The other 95% are elliptical or irregular. In elliptical galaxies, star formation ceases before sufficient rocky planet material can generally form. With irregular galaxies, you have two problems: 1) they have active nuclei, so any life would be bombarded with the nastiest of radiation and 2) they also do not sufficient heavy element concentration to form the kind of rocky planets necessary for advanced life. 5. Rotational period: The rotational period of any life-bearing planet must be within a few %. If the rotational period is too short, the temperature differences between night and day would be deadly to advanced life. If the rotational period is too fast, wind velocities would be just as deadly. Example: Jupiter has a rotational period of 10 hours and winds frequently reach 1000+ mph.
Sorry this is long, but you know how it is with science-related topics. The one sentence response is unsatisfying. The probabilities of the above and the other four dozen parameters are fairly easy to estimate by simple observation. Here's a few examples with the probabilities galaxy type .1 star location .2 number of stars in system .2 star birth date .2 star age .4 star mass .001 star luminosity relative to speciation .0001 star color .4 supernovae rates and locations .01 white dwarf binary types, rates and locations .01 planetary distance from star .001 axis tilt .3 rotation period .1 rate of change in rotation period .05
When you "add" all these up, even w/ a generous adjustment for dependencies, you get a probability less than 1 in 10^50. In other words, you're probability is 1 in 10^50 but the number of planets is only one in 10^22. Now let me state clearly that I recognize that these are not exact numbers and we do not know the exact dependencies involved. I recognize this is strictly an estimate and estimates can never be offered as proof. But, that said, the numbers should not be ignored. I'm just saying imo life anywhere in the universe is counterintuitive.
Somehow I get the feeling your conclusion (1 in 10^50) is a number flowing from a pre-conceived notion about the origin of life. I doubt there is much consensus on that particular number in the scientific community. I am going to do my own research and examine the work of various astrophysicists and present here at a later date other studies into the probability of life in the known universe. Your're the smartest shoeshine boy I have ever met!