Is the Universe Fine Tuned for Life? 2
spintronic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
And asked the above question.
Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of
the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
Here is food for thought.
In the video he claims that:
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
of the universe cannot support human life.
****************************************************
So by his logic.
The surface area of this planet we call home is
so finely tuned to support human life, that the total
percentage of places in the entire universe that can
do the job are;
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call
home.
Andre Lieven
Continued to exhibit it's extreme brain damage. Nothing new...
Andre
Boikat
We fit in the part of the Universe lif as we know it arose and
diversified, not the other way around, fool. But I gess you were too
busy trying to think of some sort of "logical" rebutal to the video.
You failed.
Boikat
spintronic
> On Nov 15, 2:29 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
. (BLANK)
> Continued to exhibit it's extreme brain damage.
A blank did that? Wow.
Oh I get it, you meant "spintronic".
Well, "spintronic's" a "HE", not an "it".
An undamaged brain would know the difference.
spintronic
> On Nov 15, 1:29 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > DA posted this video
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
>
> > And asked the above question.
>
> > Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of
> > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
>
> > Here is food for thought.
>
> > In the video he claims that:
>
> > 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
>
> > of the universe cannot support human life.
> > ****************************************************
>
> > So by his logic.
>
> > The surface area of this planet we call home is
> > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total
> > percentage of places in the entire universe that can
> > do the job are;
>
> > 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
>
> > And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
>
> > I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call
> > home.
.
> We fit in the part of the Universe lif as we know it arose
You got the last 4 words wrong.
> and diversified, not the other way around, fool.
So matter didn't diversify, arise, and fit into the part of the
universe we inhabit?
I mean, that's what you'e saying right? <--> reversed.
> But I gess you were too busy trying to think of some sort of "logical" rebutal to the video.
I don't even need logic to discredit this video. He does it all on his
own.
You do realise, this fraud is banned on youtube right?
You do realise, that's not even his own voice, right?
> You failed.
I never fail.
And you never fail to amuse.
Inez
So if you take your car to the mechanics and he detunes all the other
cars in the shop, your satisfied that yours is now finely tuned?
chris thompson
So the surface of the planet is fine-tuned for human life.
Interesting idea.
We can eliminate about 70% of it right off, since humans cannot
survive in water.
We can eliminate one whole continent- Antarctica- because humans
cannot survive there- and I doubt even you would claim it's fine-tuned
for human life.
Let's see. There's another set of land that's too high up for humans
to thrive- oh, we can survive in Nepal and Tibet and parts of the
Andean Cordillera, but would you say they are fine-tuned for human
life?
Now let's look at the land area covered by extreme deserts- the Gobi,
the Sahara, the Namib.
Fine-tuned? I'd say not.
We're fast running low on parts of the planet's surface, wouldn't you
say?
And now there's a huge area of the planet that seems more finely-tuned
for humans to act as incubators for parasites like liver flukes and
_Plasmodium_ wouldn't you say?
Finely-tuned? Heh.
Chris
Boikat
Evasion, noted.
>
> > and diversified, not the other way around, fool.
>
> So matter didn't diversify, arise, and fit into the part of the
> universe we inhabit?
Whee did I even hint at that?
>
> I mean, that's what you'e saying right? <--> reversed.
Wrong.
>
> > But I gess you were too busy trying to think of some sort of "logical" rebutal to the video.
>
> I don't even need logic to discredit this video. He does it all on his
> own.
Well, it's a good thing you've avoided using logic then, isn't it?
>
> You do realise, this fraud is banned on youtube right?
Where was the "fraud"?
> You do realise, that's not even his own voice, right?
Irrelevent.
>
> > You failed.
>
> I never fail.
Sorry to break this to you, but you are awake now, this is not your
dream world.
>
> And you never fail to amuse.
You didn't.
Boikat
spintronic
> On Nov 15, 2:29 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.
> So the surface of the planet is fine-tuned for human life.
>
> Interesting idea.
>
> We can eliminate about 70% of it right off,
I wouldn't throw numbers at me if I were you,
especially since you just got a major humiliation in our last
encounter.
spintronic
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'd say my car was now "special".
Devils Advocaat
I am not the author of the video in question, so perhaps instead of
accusing me of being in error you should take the matter up with the
author of the video instead.
Devils Advocaat
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
>
> And asked the above question.
>
> Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of
> the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
The author of the video didn't once mention the mass of the earth.
>
> Here is food for thought.
>
> In the video he claims that:
>
> 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
>
> of the universe cannot support human life.
> ****************************************************
>
> So by his logic.
>
> The surface area of this planet we call home is
> so finely tuned to support human life, that the total
> percentage of places in the entire universe that can
> do the job are;
>
> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
>
> And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
>
> I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call
> home.
You also seem to have missed the fact that before he presented this
figure he said:
"lets assume ... that every single star in every single galaxy has an
earth-like planet orbiting it"
So I believe you should at the very least admit that your comments are
in error.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"spintronic" <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42a09f26-bc06-4784...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Bwahahahaaaaaaaa ...............
With that same type of deranged lunacy - a "star wars" missle that explodes
100 miles from its incoming target missle is a success.
It is not according to "his math" - it is according to claims made by
ignorant creationists - like you.
( You know - like the type who changes the goal posts by ignoring the fact
that the discussion was about a "fine tuned UNIVERSE - NOT a fine tuned
earth!)
Andre Lieven
Fair enough, then it matches you, who are also "spacial", in the
"Special Olympics" definition of the term.
The difference being is that they didn't choose to be "special", but
you DID choose to be a retard. HTH.
Andre
John Harshman
the claim that certain portions of the surface of the earth are fine tuned.
Are you surprised that we live in a place we find habitable?
All-Seeing-I
It looks like it was designed just for life as we know it, eh?
Of course.
There can be no other reasonable explanation unless you LIKE to
believe in fairy tales like evolution. The same speciation divergence
that no one has ever witnessed taking place BTW.
Reddfrogg
> On Nov 15, 1:29 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > DA posted this video
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
>
> > And asked the above question.
>
> > Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of
> > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
>
> > Here is food for thought.
>
> > In the video he claims that:
>
> > 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
>
> > of the universe cannot support human life.
> > ****************************************************
>
> > So by his logic.
>
> > The surface area of this planet we call home is
> > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total
> > percentage of places in the entire universe that can
> > do the job are;
>
> > 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
>
> > And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
>
> > I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call
> > home.
>
> It looks like it was designed just for life as we know it, eh?
Only if you realize that "life as we know it" has shaped the planet to
fit it. The early Earth would not have supported most modern life.
>
> Of course.
Of course, if you remain ignorant.....
>
> There can be no other reasonable explanation unless you LIKE to
> believe in fairy tales like evolution.
Your own explanation is not reasonable, and evolution is a scientific
theory, not a "fairy tale". Ironically, you choose to believe ancient
texts, which record folk tales, over the scientific evidence.
>The same speciation divergence
> that no one has ever witnessed taking place BTW.
Speciation has been observed many times. You keep ignoring the
evidence.
DJT
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Right. Obviously fine tuned.
If it were not fine tuned then even evolution would not be able to
take place. Right?
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Guilt by association.
Ye Old One
Evolution fine tunes life to survive on Earth.
--
Bob.
Blessed are the Fundamentalists, for they shall inhibit the earth.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
ATTN LURKERS.
This subject is a prime example of the evolutionist double standard/
double talk.
The universe is NOT fine tuned if it is to show creation
BUT
The universe IS fine tuned to allow life to evolve.
Without the finely tuned processes, not even evolution could take
place.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
You are.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Lying, scientifically illiterate arsehole.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Inez
But not finely tuned? Your argument seemed to be that tuning was
relative.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>Of course.
>
> There can be no other reasonable explanation unless you LIKE to
>believe in fairy tales like evolution. The same speciation divergence
>that no one has ever witnessed taking place BTW.
>
ghosts can't design anything. and creationism is a ghost based view of
reality
guscubed
Muddy puddle thinking:
". . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is
an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find
myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me
staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' ... "
- Douglas Adams
Steven L.
Certainly there are a lot of properties of the Earth and its position in
the Galaxy that make it relatively suitable for the evolution of
complex, intelligent life forms. From what we know about biochemical
life, most--perhaps all other--planets in our Galaxy could never harbor
such life forms, because biochemical reactions could not take place
there at all: Too young, too much radiation, too cold, too hot, no
water or other solvent, etc. Other planets that possess all those same
life-supporting properties as the Earth does may be very rare in this
Universe.
If intelligent life forms on Earth represent a quintillion-to-one cosmic
freak accident in this Universe, that's going to be very hard to
explain, given the size of the Universe and the fact that the same laws
of science hold everywhere.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
I'm surprised we haven't found any others.
Of course life forms elsewhere may not be based on DNA. But life as we
know it is based on carbon biochemistry. And carbon and hydrogen aren't
rare elements in this Universe.
It's no longer tenable to say "We just haven't been looking for
extraterrestrial life hard enough." We're looking--hundreds of
extrasolar planets, all the SETI searches--`but we're not finding. Even
though meteorites contain amino acids--but no fossils.
The sky is NOT "softly humming with messages from the stars," as Sagan
had hoped. There seems to be no one else out there.
I'm uncomfortable with the notion of life on Earth being a
quintillion-to-one cosmic freak accident in the Universe. You should be
too, given the prevalence of carbon, hydrogen, and such elements in the
rest of the Universe.
Stuart
> DA posted this video
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
>
> And asked the above question.
>
> Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of
> the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
>
> Here is food for thought.
>
> In the video he claims that:
>
> 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
>
> of the universe cannot support human life.
> ****************************************************
>
> So by his logic.
>
> The surface area of this planet we call home is
> so finely tuned to support human life, that the total
> percentage of places in the entire universe that can
> do the job are;
>
> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
>
> And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
>
> I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call
> home.
Douche bag. If the Universe was fine tuned for life, we'd find it
everywhere. We
wouldn't be in Solar system where only one planet has life. Thats not
fine tuning.
Life on our planet is a result of luck that the right combination of
ingredients and
circumstances allowed life to originate and diversify came together.
Stuart
All-Seeing-I
Oh! So evolution plays God now?
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
And here comes THE ONE TRICK PONY
Steven L.
That argument is unsatisfactory.
Because life also *began* here on Earth. The conditions were just right
for life to begin. We know that carbon biochemistry can only take place
under certain conditions.
The planet Jupiter is loaded with hydrogen, methane and ammonia.
Carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen. Far more than there was on the
primordial Earth. But there's no life there.
The planet Mars has water, and a similar composition to the Earth. But
there's no life there either.
There are a lot of small rocky exoplanets. But they don't have stable
orbits like the Earth.
spintronic
>
> - Show quoted text -
Many of you don't realise,the author is banned on youtube because he's
crazy.
That's not his voice BTW.
spintronic
> On Nov 15, 4:05 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> moronised:
.
.
>
> > I'd say my car was now "special".
>
> Fair enough, then it matches you, who are also "spacial", in the
> "Special Olympics" definition of the term.
I have an idea, why not take up the point the author made about
"olympic swimming pools".
He said it was;
"like having 6million olympic size swimming pools that can
collectively hold no more than 1 H2O molecule, yet claim they're fine
tuned for water storage".
Well: Only a BUFFOON would claim olympic pools aren't fine tuned for
water storage.
***********************************************************************
You see in logical argument, there is such a thing as a "crossover
that blinds".
That's where you;
Take a logical argument from A);
then
Take a logical argument from B);
And construct a (seemingly) paradoxical argument C), from A) & B).
It's a magicians trick.
Sad that so many of you were fooled by it.
spintronic
> spintronic wrote:
> > DA posted this video
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
>
> > And asked the above question.
>
> > Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of
> > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
>
> > Here is food for thought.
>
> > In the video he claims that:
>
> > 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
>
> > of the universe cannot support human life.
> > ****************************************************
>
> > So by his logic.
>
> > The surface area of this planet we call home is
> > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total
> > percentage of places in the entire universe that can
> > do the job are;
>
> > 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
>
> > And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
>
> > I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call
> > home.
JH inverse of logic A)
> So you reject the claim that the universe is fine tuned,
No.
JH logic X)
> and retreat to the claim
Logic B)
> certain portions of the surface of the earth are fine tuned.
See what I mean?
They Take the invese of logic A),
Mix with logic B),
Add logic X)
And create illogical argument C).
> Are you surprised that we live in a place we find habitable?
By your logic you are immortal.
Baron Bodissey
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
I think it is pretty premature to come to that conclusion yet. A few
hundred -- and none earth-like if I recall correctly -- out of
trillions of possibilities. Not exactly a representative sample size.
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
– Amazon Women on the Moon
John Harshman
too stupid.
John Harshman
Not quite right. If we're looking for earthlike planets, the searches so
far are not capable of detecting them. And SETI doesn't search for life.
It searches for civilizations, quite a different thing. SETI would not,
in fact, be capable of finding earth. It's still possible that life is
extremely common in the universe (or at least that most earthlike
planets have it). We don't have much data.
> The sky is NOT "softly humming with messages from the stars," as Sagan
> had hoped. There seems to be no one else out there.
Don't confuse life with intelligence. Even if SETI was capable of
finding intelligence, life has been on earth for 4 billion years, and
intelligence less than one 10,000th of that.
> I'm uncomfortable with the notion of life on Earth being a
> quintillion-to-one cosmic freak accident in the Universe. You should be
> too, given the prevalence of carbon, hydrogen, and such elements in the
> rest of the Universe.
I agree. But we have no data suggesting that life is rare.
Note, by the way, that even if life is ubiquitous on suitable planets,
the universe is still overwhelmingly composed of vacuum. You can't
really say it's designed for life. And the 99.99999 etc. is still correct.
Boikat
No, it would simply mean that we are located in that one in a
quintillion spot of the Universe. Given the size of the Universe,
even the long shot is inevitable.
Boikat
Inez
> On 15 Nov, 21:32, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 4:05 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> moronised:
>
> .
> .
>
>
>
> > > I'd say my car was now "special".
>
> > Fair enough, then it matches you, who are also "spacial", in the
> > "Special Olympics" definition of the term.
>
> I have an idea, why not take up the point the author made about
> "olympic swimming pools".
>
> He said it was;
>
> "like having 6million olympic size swimming pools that can
> collectively hold no more than 1 H2O molecule, yet claim they're fine
> tuned for water storage".
>
> Well: Only a BUFFOON would claim olympic pools aren't fine tuned for
> water storage.
It's probably a good thing that he didn't claim that then.
Devils Advocaat
If the author of the video is "banned on youtube" then how come he has
so many video clips on there?
Andre Lieven
I'm not, our technology for this is still extremely primitive. Note
that almost
all of the extrasolar planets that we have found so far are Jupiter
and larger
class planets, becauuse their much greater mass makes them easier to
detect.
Even the first Earth type planet that we have detected, Gliese 581C,
is
about six Earth masses, and isn't really in the habitable zone around
it's
red dwarf star.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_c
> Of course life forms elsewhere may not be based on DNA. But life as we
> know it is based on carbon biochemistry. And carbon and hydrogen aren't
> rare elements in this Universe.
>
> It's no longer tenable to say "We just haven't been looking for
> extraterrestrial life hard enough." We're looking--hundreds of
> extrasolar planets, all the SETI searches--`but we're not finding. Even
> though meteorites contain amino acids--but no fossils.
Given that most meteors will be products of our solar system, this is
hardly surprising.
> The sky is NOT "softly humming with messages from the stars," as Sagan
> had hoped. There seems to be no one else out there.
To use a Star Trek metaphor, it could just as easily be that advanced
civilisations don't use lightspeed radio, but might have moved onto
another
system of information exchange, such as "subspace" communications.
If so, then again, it is not straange that we cannot detect such
transmissions.
Beyond that, as the famous Drake equation notes, the lifespan of an
advanced technological civilisation may not be long, in the millions
of
years measure. So, even if there is a lot of life out there, it may be
that
there is little life that can both transmit and recieve on radio
frequencies,
before either dying out, or moving to more esoteric and advanced forms
of communication.
> I'm uncomfortable with the notion of life on Earth being a
> quintillion-to-one cosmic freak accident in the Universe. You should be
> too, given the prevalence of carbon, hydrogen, and such elements in the
> rest of the Universe.
Sure. But, for well over 99.9999% of the time of life on Earth, said
life
had no ability to either transmit into the Universe or listen for
anyone
else's transmissions.
That issue isn't addressed by how much life there is, or can be, but
how much of that life manages to evolve into sentience and
technological
levels able to communicate out of their solar systems.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On 15 Nov, 21:32, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 4:05 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> moronised:
>
>
> > Fair enough, then it matches you, who are also "spacial", in the
> > "Special Olympics" definition of the term.
>
> I have an idea,
No evidence offered ? Factless claim always fails.
> why not take up the point the author made about
> "olympic swimming pools".
Because it is meaningless and idiotic would be good reasons.
Oops, I forgot: You are meaningless and idiotic.
> He said it was;
>
> "like having 6million olympic size swimming pools that can
> collectively hold no more than 1 H2O molecule, yet claim they're fine
> tuned for water storage".
>
> Well: Only a BUFFOON would claim olympic pools aren't fine tuned for
> water storage.
So ? 100% of a p0ool is "fine tuned" for water storage. Far less than
10%
of the Earth's surface is "fine tuned" for human life, ergo, Earth is
far more
POORLY "built" for any such purpose.
> ***********************************************************************
>
> You see in logical argument, there is such a thing as a "crossover
> that blinds".
>
> That's where you;
>
> Take a logical argument from A);
>
> then
>
> Take a logical argument from B);
>
> And construct a (seemingly) paradoxical argument C), from A) & B).
>
> It's a magicians trick.
>
> Sad that so many of you were fooled by it.
<Laughs> We ignored it, because it was, well, stupid and meaningless.
But, since you are stupid and meaningless, you fell for it. No news
there.
Andre
chris thompson
> On 15 Nov, 20:47, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 15, 2:29 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> .
> .
>
> > So the surface of the planet is fine-tuned for human life.
>
> > Interesting idea.
>
> > We can eliminate about 70% of it right off,
>
>
> especially since you just got a major humiliation in our last
> encounter.
Um, the population of Planet Earth must have missed that. Please feel
free to relate this 'major humiliation'...and, ummm, drug-induced
hallucinations do not count.
And next, explain how 70% of the planet's surface is fine-tuned for
human life, if we cannot survive in water.
You're a fucking idiot, in case that was not clear. And you're a lying
fucking idiot, because you snipped my post without indicating you did
so. So include "pathetic" in there too.
Chris
Andre Lieven
On Nov 15, 7:02 pm, spintmoron <spa...@loony.kook> stupided:
> On 15 Nov, 21:32, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 4:05 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> moronised:
>
> > > I'd say my car was now "special".
>
> > Fair enough, then it matches you, who are also "spacial", in the
> > "Special Olympics" definition of the term.
>
> I have an idea,
No evidence offered ? Factless claim always fails.
> why not take up the point the author made about
> "olympic swimming pools".
Because it is meaningless and idiotic would be good reasons.
Oops, I forgot: You are meaningless and idiotic.
> He said it was;
>
> "like having 6million olympic size swimming pools that can
> collectively hold no more than 1 H2O molecule, yet claim they're fine
> tuned for water storage".
>
> Well: Only a BUFFOON would claim olympic pools aren't fine tuned for
> water storage.
So ? 100% of a p0ool is "fine tuned" for water storage. Far less than
10%
of the Earth's surface is "fine tuned" for human life, ergo, Earth is
far more
POORLY "built" for any such purpose.
> ***********************************************************************
>
> You see in logical argument, there is such a thing as a "crossover
> that blinds".
>
> That's where you;
>
> Take a logical argument from A);
>
> then
>
> Take a logical argument from B);
>
> And construct a (seemingly) paradoxical argument C), from A) & B).
>
> It's a magicians trick.
>
> Sad that so many of you were fooled by it.
<Laughs> We ignored it, because it was, well, stupid and meaningless.
As well as being the fallacy of non sequitur.
spintronic
>
> - Show quoted text -
One hit wonder you mean.
Hit = "ctrl & v"
spintronic
Which is also my argument.
> Of course life forms elsewhere may not be based on DNA.
Given that *certain* amino acids form quite easily as you point out
below,
it is highly likely that *ALL* life would be besed on them.
The question is, do the Nucleoside's form as easy?
Given that proteins are poor storage, it is highly likely, *all* life
based on amino acids
would also utilise nucleic acids. Such as RNA, and DNA.
But could also be based on Artificial nucleic acids, PNA, GNA, LNA,
TNA etc.
The question is, how good at they as storage, & replication?
> But life as we know it is based on carbon biochemistry. And carbon and hydrogen aren't
> rare elements in this Universe.
>
> It's no longer tenable to say "We just haven't been looking for
> extraterrestrial life hard enough." We're looking--hundreds of
> extrasolar planets, all the SETI searches--`but we're not finding. Even
> though meteorites contain amino acids--but no fossils.
Lets say that evolution is a property of the universe.
(By that, I mean as a useful error correction tool)
And many on T.O claim that abiogenesis is a given to occur all by
itself.
Given the possible combinations that the chemistry could allow,
It is actually GOBSMACKINGLY unbelieveable that life *isn't*
everywhere.
> The sky is NOT "softly humming with messages from the stars," as Sagan
> had hoped. There seems to be no one else out there.
Funny that, isn't it?
I mean, you have got to laugh!
> I'm uncomfortable with the notion of life on Earth being a
> quintillion-to-one cosmic freak accident in the Universe. You should be
> too,
Make that three of us.
> given the prevalence of carbon, hydrogen, and such elements in the
> rest of the Universe.
Hmm, wonder where everyone is hiding?
spintronic
.
> I suppose I'm just too stupid.
You can't argue with that logic.
spintronic
Not very bright are you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_e
> And SETI doesn't search for life.
Like I said, not very bright.
> SETI would not, in fact, be capable of finding earth.
SETI can't find earth?
That's funny. All they have to do is look down.
> It's still possible that life is
> extremely common in the universe (or at least that most earthlike
> planets have it). We don't have much data.
Hmm, let me do the math.
We have 9 planets here, 405 on the exoplanet database.
20 less than 10 earth mass's
We have 4 *DEFINITE* earth size planet within 21 light years,
8 are considered "low mass" The extra 4 being about 5-8 earth mass's.
Many more within 50 Light years (But we'll ignore them)
4 planets found in 1 solar system alone, 2 of them low mass 1 in the
habital zone.
And seti has searched upto 200 light years.
Average volume per habital size planet's = 4849.048261
**********************************************************************
Giving an average of ******6,910***** habitable mass planet's
***WITHIN*** seti's range.
*********************************************************************
Now consider this.
That 6,910 habitable size planets, is averaged based on the *KNOWN*
planets we have so far.
I am sure there are thousand's more within SETI's 200 light year
distance covered so far.
And I'm even more sure that random signals can be picked up from much
farther away than 200 light years.
(That's just what they have *definitely* covered)
> > I'm uncomfortable with the notion of life on Earth being a
> > quintillion-to-one cosmic freak accident in the Universe. You should be
> > too, given the prevalence of carbon, hydrogen, and such elements in the
> > rest of the Universe.
>
> I agree. But we have no data suggesting that life is rare.
Apparently we do.
spintronic
> > John Harshman wrote:
.
> Note, by the way, that even if life is ubiquitous on suitable planets,
> the universe is still overwhelmingly composed of vacuum. You can't
> really say it's designed for life. And the 99.99999 etc. is still correct.
What gibberish.
That's like saying the space shuttle isn't designed to carry
astronoughts
since the metal falls & the shuttle weighs 4470000 lb, against an
astronaught's 210lb
By your logic, the shuttle is;
100 - ((100 / 4 470 000) * 210) = 99.995302% designed *NOT* to carry
astronoughts
****************************************************************
Nice logic a space shuttle is 99.995302% designed *NOT* to carry
paople.
****************************************************************
And if we include the millions of tonnes of machinery it took to build
the shuttle in the first place.
You are saying a shuttle is 99.99999999999999999999999% designed *NOT*
to carry astronoughts.
J. J. Lodder
> DA posted this video
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
>
> And asked the above question.
>
> Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of
> the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
>
> Here is food for thought.
>
> In the video he claims that:
>
> 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
>
> of the universe cannot support human life.
> ****************************************************
>
> So by his logic.
>
> The surface area of this planet we call home is
> so finely tuned to support human life, that the total
> percentage of places in the entire universe that can
> do the job are;
>
> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
>
> And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
>
> I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call
> home.
Damn stupid, to create so much waste space,
Jan
bpuharic
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>And seti has searched upto 200 light years.
>
>Average volume per habital size planet's = 4849.048261
>
>**********************************************************************
>
>Giving an average of ******6,910***** habitable mass planet's
>
> ***WITHIN*** seti's range.
>
>*********************************************************************
>Now consider this.
>
>That 6,910 habitable size planets, is averaged based on the *KNOWN*
>planets we have so far.
>
>I am sure there are thousand's more within SETI's 200 light year
>distance covered so far.
>
>And I'm even more sure that random signals can be picked up from much
>farther away than 200 light years.
>
what he ignores, of course, is that radio waves produced by humans
have been present on earth for about 100 of the 4.5B year history of
earth
oh well...no one ever said being a creationist was easy...when you
have to believe in ghosts as an agency of natural processes, patrick
swayze is your patron saint, i guess
spintronic
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:45:45 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>
>
>
>
>
> <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >And seti has searched upto 200 light years.
>
> >Average volume per habital size planet's = 4849.048261
>
> >**********************************************************************
>
> >Giving an average of ******6,910***** habitable mass planet's
>
> > ***WITHIN*** seti's range.
>
> >*********************************************************************
> >Now consider this.
>
> >That 6,910 habitable size planets, is averaged based on the *KNOWN*
> >planets we have so far.
>
> >I am sure there are thousand's more within SETI's 200 light year
> >distance covered so far.
>
> >And I'm even more sure that random signals can be picked up from much
> >farther away than 200 light years.
.
> what he ignores, of course, is that radio waves produced by humans
> have been present on earth for about 100 of the 4.5B year history of
> earth
>
> oh well...no one ever said being a creationist was easy...when you
> have to believe in ghosts as an agency of natural processes, patrick
> swayze is your patron saint, i guess
And what you fail to realise is that man has gone from Radio Waves to
the coming technological singularity in less than 140 years.
Now let me get this right.
4Billion + 140 = singularity, and we'll probably be travelling
through
wormholes n shit.
Now how old is the universe?
14 Billion give or take a bit.
Now what is 14 billion - 4Billion + 140?
Oh that's right;
These guys *THE ONES YOU CAN'T HERE* have had a TEN BILLION YEAR
technological singularity, to come and find us.
I WONDER WHERE THEY ARE?
spintronic
.
> Damn stupid, to create so much waste space,
Tell that to NASA when their building their shuttles.
chris thompson
[...]
>
> Now let me get this right.
>
> 4Billion + 140 = singularity, and we'll probably be travelling
> through
> wormholes n shit.
Reading your posts is close enough to traveling through wormhole shit
for me, thanks.
Chris
[...]
Boikat
From the cited site:
"At a minimum of 1.9 Earth masses, it is the smallest extrasolar
planet discovered around a normal star, and the closest in mass to
Earth. At an orbital distance of just 0.03 AU from its parent star,
however, it is outside the habitable zone. It is unlikely to possess
an atmosphere due to its high temperature and strong radiation from
the star. From this planet, the star would appear more than 10 times
larger in the sky than the Sun does appear from Earth and shine about
4 times brighter at a magnitude of about -27. Although scientists
think it probably has a rocky surface similar to Earth, it is also
likely to experience intense tidal heating similar to (and likely more
intense than) that affecting Jupiter's moon Io. Gliese 581e completes
an orbit of its sun in approximately 3.15 days."
What "Earth" are you refering to, if you think Gliese 581 e is "Earth-
like"?
At present, we cannot detect (but soon should be) a planet, like
Earth, that orbits within the Goldilocks Zone, around a star similar
to the sun, about the same size as Earth.
Gliese 581 e doesn't fit the bill for several reasons.
>
> > And SETI doesn't search for life.
>
> Like I said, not very bright.
Specifically, SETI is looking for signs of *intelligent* life. There
could be a planet teaming with life, but if there is no intelligent
life present that sued, or uses, radio waves as a means of
communications, SETI would not be abe to detect it. If anyone is "not
too bright", it's you.
>
> > SETI would not, in fact, be capable of finding earth.
>
> SETI can't find earth?
>
> That's funny. All they have to do is look down.
Another point flies over your head. Being obtuse as a means of
disguising your stupidity is amusing.
Your point? That we haven't found evidence of *intelligent* life
yet? So what?
>
> > > I'm uncomfortable with the notion of life on Earth being a
> > > quintillion-to-one cosmic freak accident in the Universe. You should be
> > > too, given the prevalence of carbon, hydrogen, and such elements in the
> > > rest of the Universe.
>
> > I agree. But we have no data suggesting that life is rare.
>
> Apparently we do.
So much for a "Universe finely tuned for life" then.
Of course, that leaves you the "Therefore, life must have been created
by a god thingy" argument from ignorance and incredulity.
Boikat
Boikat
So, what part of the Universe, besides the Sun and Moon, is needed to
support life on Earth? If all those billions of galaxies were yo
suddenly disappear, what detriment would there be to life on Earth?
Then, take away all the stars in our galaxy, except for the Sun, and
explain how that would be a problem for life on Earth. Take away
Mercury, Venus, Mars, and the rest of the planets, asteroids, comets,
everything, except for the Earth, Sun and Moon, how would that be a
problem for life on Earth?
That illustrates the fallacy of your "shuttle" argument. You must
have taken your "Stupidity Makes Me Smart" pill, today.
Boikat
Boikat
Damn, you're stupid, and so is your analogy. Aside from the Sun, the
Moon, and naturally the Earth itself, what part of the rest of the
Universe is needed for life to exist on Earth? All the bits and
pieces of teh shuttle are needed to get a payload into space. How does
that equate to the rest of the Universe is needed to support life on
Earth?
Boikat
Boikat
> On Nov 15, 4:09 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:59:37 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I> > >On Nov 15, 2:47 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >> On Nov 15, 2:29 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > DA posted this video
>
> > >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
>
> > >> > And asked the above question.
>
> > >> > Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of
> > >> > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
>
> > >> > Here is food for thought.
>
> > >> > In the video he claims that:
>
> > >> > 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
>
> > >> > of the universe cannot support human life.
> > >> > ****************************************************
>
> > >> > So by his logic.
>
> > >> > The surface area of this planet we call home is
> > >> > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total
> > >> > percentage of places in the entire universe that can
> > >> > do the job are;
>
> > >> > 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
>
> > >> > And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
>
> > >> > I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call
> > >> > home.
>
>
> > >> Interesting idea.
>
> > >> survive in water.
>
> > >> We can eliminate one whole continent- Antarctica- because humans
> > >> cannot survive there- and I doubt even you would claim it's fine-tuned
> > >> for human life.
>
> > >> Let's see. There's another set of land that's too high up for humans
> > >> to thrive- oh, we can survive in Nepal and Tibet and parts of the
> > >> Andean Cordillera, but would you say they are fine-tuned for human
> > >> life?
>
> > >> Now let's look at the land area covered by extreme deserts- the Gobi,
> > >> the Sahara, the Namib.
>
> > >> Fine-tuned? I'd say not.
>
> > >> We're fast running low on parts of the planet's surface, wouldn't you
> > >> say?
>
> > >> And now there's a huge area of the planet that seems more finely-tuned
> > >> for humans to act as incubators for parasites like liver flukes and
> > >> _Plasmodium_ wouldn't you say?
>
> > >> Finely-tuned? Heh.
>
> > >> Chris- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > >If it were not fine tuned then even evolution would not be able to
> > >take place. Right?
>
> > Evolution fine tunes life to survive on Earth.
>
> Oh! So evolution plays God now?-
No, evolution is a naturally occuring process that causes a
statistical shift in the population genetics towards inherited trates
which convey a reproductive advantage within the populations of
organisms in a given environment. No "god" or intelligent guidence
needed or indicated. DUH!
Boikat
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 15, 4:02 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 2:57 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 15, 1:29 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> DA posted this video
>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
>>
>>>> And asked the above question.
>>
>>>> Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead
>>>> of the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
>>
>>>> Here is food for thought.
>>
>>>> In the video he claims that:
>>
>>>> 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
>>
>>>> of the universe cannot support human life.
>>>> ****************************************************
>>
>>>> So by his logic.
>>
>>>> The surface area of this planet we call home is
>>>> so finely tuned to support human life, that the total
>>>> percentage of places in the entire universe that can
>>>> do the job are;
>>
>>>> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
>>
>>>> And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
>>
>>>> I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call
>>>> home.
>>
>>
>> Only if you realize that "life as we know it" has shaped the planet
>> to fit it. The early Earth would not have supported most modern life.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Of course.
>>
>> Of course, if you remain ignorant.....
>>
>>
>>
>>> There can be no other reasonable explanation unless you LIKE to
>>> believe in fairy tales like evolution.
>>
>> Your own explanation is not reasonable, and evolution is a scientific
>> theory, not a "fairy tale". Ironically, you choose to believe ancient
>> texts, which record folk tales, over the scientific evidence.
>>
>>> The same speciation divergence
>>> that no one has ever witnessed taking place BTW.
>>
>> Speciation has been observed many times. You keep ignoring the
>> evidence.
>>
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> This subject is a prime example of the evolutionist double standard/
> double talk.
How is it either?
>
> The universe is NOT fine tuned if it is to show creation
There's no indication that the universe is "fine tuned" for anything.
>
> BUT
>
> The universe IS fine tuned to allow life to evolve.
No, life has evolved on Earth, one small spot in the universe. There may
be other planets where conditions were right for life to exist, but there
are a great deal more places where it's not.
>
> Without the finely tuned processes, not even evolution could take
> place.
Without a population of imperfectly replicating organisms, evolution could
not take place. That doesn't mean conditions are 'fine tuned".
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> oh well...no one ever said being a creationist was easy...when you
>> have to believe in ghosts as an agency of natural processes, patrick
>> swayze is your patron saint, i guess
>
>
> And what you fail to realise is that man has gone from Radio Waves to
> the coming technological singularity in less than 140 years.
What "technological singularity"?
>
> Now let me get this right.
>
> 4Billion + 140 = singularity, and we'll probably be travelling
> through
> wormholes n shit.
Maybe, but more likely not.
>
> Now how old is the universe?
>
> 14 Billion give or take a bit.
>
> Now what is 14 billion - 4Billion + 140?
>
>
> Oh that's right;
>
>
> These guys *THE ONES YOU CAN'T HERE* have had a TEN BILLION YEAR
> technological singularity, to come and find us.
Or, maybe there aren't any other intelligent life forms. Or maybe if there
are, they haven't developed radio, or space travel.
Or, maybe they don't know we are here. Or maybe they don't want to "find
us". The fact that humans developed the way they did is no indication
how life on other planets may have developed.
>
> I WONDER WHERE THEY ARE?
Maybe they are here, and they have the good sense to stay hidden. In any
case, not being contacted by a extraterrestrial life form is no evidence
that life does not exist elsewhere.
DJT
Kermit
> DA posted this video
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
>
> And asked the above question.
>
> Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of
> the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
>
> Here is food for thought.
>
> In the video he claims that:
>
> 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
>
> of the universe cannot support human life.
> ****************************************************
>
> So by his logic.
>
> The surface area of this planet we call home is
> so finely tuned to support human life, that the total
> percentage of places in the entire universe that can
> do the job are;
>
> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
>
> And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
>
> I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call
> home.
Gosh, what are the odds? Life arose on the only place we know where it
could. Because it makes sense to ask why life doesn't exist in hostile
environments... How many Earth-like planets do we know about, and how
many of them do we know well enough to say that they don't have life?
For the question of life and "Earth-like", I am assuming a temperature
range that allows water much of the time, a complex set of elements, a
physically stable enough environment to allow multi-celled life to
appear, all for a long enough time (possibly billions of years). Other
factors may be necessary.
For all we know *all of the planets that meet these conditions have
life. How many planets with life would have intelligent life? It took
nearly four billion years here. With one data point, what kind of
conclusions can we reach about overall odds of intelligence (given
life) and the average length of time it takes?
This is not a problem for evolutionary science, if that's what you
were thinking.
Kermit
Desertphile
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
> > So you reject the claim that the universe is fine tuned, and retreat to
> > the claim that certain portions of the surface of the earth are fine tuned.
> >
> > Are you surprised that we live in a place we find habitable?
> I'm surprised we haven't found any others.
We have looked at maybe as much as one billionth of one billionth
of the universe, and so far we have not detected alien radio
transmissions: it is far too soon to dismiss the universe as
barren.
> Of course life forms elsewhere may not be based on DNA. But life as we
> know it is based on carbon biochemistry. And carbon and hydrogen aren't
> rare elements in this Universe.
>
> It's no longer tenable to say "We just haven't been looking for
> extraterrestrial life hard enough." We're looking--hundreds of
> extrasolar planets, all the SETI searches--`but we're not finding. Even
> though meteorites contain amino acids--but no fossils.
SETI is poorly funded and it has looked at a tiny fraction of the
sky in a narrow section of the electromagnetic spectrum, trying to
detect infinitesimally tiny radio signals.
> The sky is NOT "softly humming with messages from the stars," as Sagan
> had hoped. There seems to be no one else out there.
>
> I'm uncomfortable with the notion of life on Earth being a
> quintillion-to-one cosmic freak accident in the Universe. You should be
> too, given the prevalence of carbon, hydrogen, and such elements in the
> rest of the Universe.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
spintronic
> On Nov 16, 3:49 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 16 Nov, 00:38, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:> Steven L. wrote:
> > > > John Harshman wrote:
>
> > .
> > .
>
> > > Note, by the way, that even if life is ubiquitous on suitable planets,
> > > the universe is still overwhelmingly composed of vacuum. You can't
> > > really say it's designed for life. And the 99.99999 etc. is still correct.
>
> > What gibberish.
>
> > That's like saying the space shuttle isn't designed to carry
> > astronoughts
> > since the metal falls & the shuttle weighs 4470000 lb, against an
> > astronaught's 210lb
>
> > By your logic, the shuttle is;
>
> > 100 - ((100 / 4 470 000) * 210) = 99.995302% designed *NOT* to carry
> > astronoughts
>
> > ****************************************************************
>
> > Nice logic a space shuttle is 99.995302% designed *NOT* to carry
> > paople.
>
> > ****************************************************************
>
> > And if we include the millions of tonnes of machinery it took to build
> > the shuttle in the first place.
.
> > You are saying a shuttle is 99.99999999999999999999999% designed *NOT*
> > to carry astronoughts.
>
> So, what part of the Universe, besides the Sun and Moon, is needed to
> support life on Earth?
That's a stupid question.
What part of the shuttle besides the cockpit is needed to carry an
astronaut into space?
HighQ
> On Nov 16, 8:08 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.
.
> > > Damn stupid, to create so much waste space,
>
> > Tell that to NASA when their building their shuttles
>
> Damn, you're stupid, and so is your analogy. Aside from the Sun, the
> Moon, and naturally the Earth itself, what part of the rest of the
> Universe is needed for life to exist on Earth?
Apart from the cockpit, what parts of the shuttle are needed to get an
astronaught into space?
> All the bits and pieces of teh shuttle are needed to get a payload into space.
Ah..
> How does that equate to the rest of the Universe is needed to support life on
> Earth?
******************************************************************************
How many (how do you say) *BITS & PIECES* are needed for the shuttle
to support the astronauts?
A few thousand, and lots of *dead weight*?
*******************************************************************************
How many (how do you say) *BITS & PIECES* are needed to support life
in our universe?
About 600 particles and lots of *dead weight*!
********************************************************************************
I can see it, I wonder why your so thick that you can't?
Devils Advocaat
> >> DA posted this video
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
>
> >> And asked the above question.
>
> >> Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of
> >> the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
>
> >> Here is food for thought.
>
> >> In the video he claims that:
>
> >> 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
>
> >> of the universe cannot support human life.
> >> ****************************************************
>
> >> So by his logic.
>
> >> The surface area of this planet we call home is
> >> so finely tuned to support human life, that the total
> >> percentage of places in the entire universe that can
> >> do the job are;
>
> >> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
>
> >> And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
>
> >> I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call
> >> home.
>
> > the claim that certain portions of the surface of the earth are fine tuned.
>
> > Are you surprised that we live in a place we find habitable?
>
> I'm surprised we haven't found any others.
>
> know it is based on carbon biochemistry. And carbon and hydrogen aren't
> rare elements in this Universe.
>
> It's no longer tenable to say "We just haven't been looking for
> extraterrestrial life hard enough." We're looking--hundreds of
> extrasolar planets, all the SETI searches--`but we're not finding. Even
> though meteorites contain amino acids--but no fossils.
>
> had hoped. There seems to be no one else out there.
>
> I'm uncomfortable with the notion of life on Earth being a
> quintillion-to-one cosmic freak accident in the Universe. You should be
> too, given the prevalence of carbon, hydrogen, and such elements in the
> rest of the Universe.
According to this link:
Only about 4% of the universe consists of visible baryonic matter.
And 74% of that is hydrogen and 24% is helium.
All the other elements making up just 2% of the baryonic matter in the
universe.
Which suggests to me that life grabs only a tiny fraction of that 2%.
And that in turn suggests that the universe isn't exactly fine tuned
for life.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 15, 4:09 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:59:37 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> <allseei...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 15, 2:47 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Nov 15, 2:29 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > DA posted this video
>>
>> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
>>
>> >> > And asked the above question.
>>
>> >> > Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of
>> >> > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
>>
>> >> > Here is food for thought.
>>
>> >> > In the video he claims that:
>>
>> >> > 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
>>
>> >> > of the universe cannot support human life.
>> >> > ****************************************************
>>
>> >> > So by his logic.
>>
>> >> > The surface area of this planet we call home is
>> >> > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total
>> >> > percentage of places in the entire universe that can
>> >> > do the job are;
>>
>> >> > 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
>>
>> >> > And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
>>
>> >> > I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call
>> >> > home.
>>
>> >> So the surface of the planet is fine-tuned for human life.
>>
>> >> Interesting idea.
>>
>> >> We can eliminate about 70% of it right off, since humans cannot
>> >> survive in water.
>>
>> >> We can eliminate one whole continent- Antarctica- because humans
>> >> cannot survive there- and I doubt even you would claim it's fine-tuned
>> >> for human life.
>>
>> >> Let's see. There's another set of land that's too high up for humans
>> >> to thrive- oh, we can survive in Nepal and Tibet and parts of the
>> >> Andean Cordillera, but would you say they are fine-tuned for human
>> >> life?
>>
>> >> Now let's look at the land area covered by extreme deserts- the Gobi,
>> >> the Sahara, the Namib.
>>
>> >> Fine-tuned? I'd say not.
>>
>> >> We're fast running low on parts of the planet's surface, wouldn't you
>> >> say?
>>
>> >> And now there's a huge area of the planet that seems more finely-tuned
>> >> for humans to act as incubators for parasites like liver flukes and
>> >> _Plasmodium_ wouldn't you say?
>>
>> >> Finely-tuned? Heh.
>>
>> >> Chris- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >Right. Obviously fine tuned.
>>
>> >If it were not fine tuned then even evolution would not be able to
>> >take place. Right?
>>
>> Evolution fine tunes life to survive on Earth.
>
>Oh! So evolution plays God now?
There is no god.
Ye Old One
** SHUNNED for forging, stupidity and trolling. **
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
And there you have it - another dishonest creationist who makes claims
he cannot back up.
Sad little case you are Mudbrain.
--
Bob.
You must be self-employed. Because there is only one person mad
enough to hire you.
All-seeing-I
> On Nov 15, 11:29 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > DA posted this video
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
>
> > And asked the above question.
>
> > Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of
> > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
>
> > Here is food for thought.
>
> > In the video he claims that:
>
> > 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
>
> > of the universe cannot support human life.
> > ****************************************************
>
> > So by his logic.
>
> > The surface area of this planet we call home is
> > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total
> > percentage of places in the entire universe that can
> > do the job are;
>
> > 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
>
> > And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
>
> > I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call
> > home.
>
> Gosh, what are the odds? Life arose on the only place we know where it
> could. Because it makes sense to ask why life doesn't exist in hostile
> environments...
It does, Volcanic vents at the bottom of the sea too.
How many Earth-like planets do we know about, and how
> many of them do we know well enough to say that they don't have life?
>
> For the question of life and "Earth-like", I am assuming a temperature
> range that allows water much of the time, a complex set of elements, a
> physically stable enough environment to allow multi-celled life to
> appear, all for a long enough time (possibly billions of years). Other
> factors may be necessary.
>
> For all we know *all of the planets that meet these conditions have
> life. How many planets with life would have intelligent life? It took
> nearly four billion years here. With one data point, what kind of
> conclusions can we reach about overall odds of intelligence (given
> life) and the average length of time it takes?
>
> This is not a problem for evolutionary science, if that's what you
> were thinking.
>
> Kermit- Hide quoted text -
All-seeing-I
wrote:
It seems Dana understood.
amazing in a funny way
Kermit
Speaking for myself, I'd find two meters under the ocean's surface to
be pretty inhospitable, after a minute or so.
Volcanic vents are quite friendly to the life that lives there.
It is pretty certain that life as we know it - that is, using the same
basic biochemistry Earth life uses - would be found on Venus, or Luna.
There may be life using different chemistry in places like the methane
rivers and seas of Titan. We don't yet know what's possible.
But even if our planet were the only place in all those trillions of
solar systems where life is found, guess what? The only things that
can ask these questions will be there (here, where life is possible).
The OP was asking why life is found where life is found. As to whether
or not we are the only place where it is possible, the scientific
answer is:
we don't know yet.
The best guesses of most scientists would be: life will be found
wherever the conditions are right for it. At this point it's just an
uninformative tautology, because we don't know what those conditions
are, yet. Therefore, and because of limitations in our tools so far,
we do not know how common those conditions are.
>
> How many Earth-like planets do we know about, and how
Just the one, so far. but with all of those large planets being
discovered, it looks like nearly every star has planets of some sort.
There's no reason to think medium sized ("This planet is *just
*right!" said Goldilocks) rocky planets are uncommon. But there are
other conditions - temperature range and such.
>
> > many of them do we know well enough to say that they don't have life?
The one that we know about has life.
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:49deeaea-d6ee-4ef2...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 16, 9:55 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Life is fine tuned to the Universe.
.
John Harshman
> On 16 Nov, 00:40, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> spintronic wrote:
> .
> .
>
>> I suppose I'm just too stupid.
>
>
> You can't argue with that logic.
>
Thanks for explaining.
John Harshman
>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> DA posted this video
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
>>>>> And asked the above question.
>>>>> Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of
>>>>> the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
>>>>> Here is food for thought.
>>>>> In the video he claims that:
>>>>> 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
>>>>> of the universe cannot support human life.
>>>>> ****************************************************
>>>>> So by his logic.
>>>>> The surface area of this planet we call home is
>>>>> so finely tuned to support human life, that the total
>>>>> percentage of places in the entire universe that can
>>>>> do the job are;
>>>>> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
>>>>> And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
>>>>> I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call
>>>>> home.
>>>> to the claim that certain portions of the surface of the earth are
>>>> fine tuned.
>>>> Are you surprised that we live in a place we find habitable?
>>> I'm surprised we haven't found any others.
>>> Of course life forms elsewhere may not be based on DNA. But life as we
>>> know it is based on carbon biochemistry. And carbon and hydrogen aren't
>>> rare elements in this Universe.
> .
>
>>> It's no longer tenable to say "We just haven't been looking for
>>> extraterrestrial life hard enough." We're looking--hundreds of
>>> extrasolar planets, all the SETI searches--`but we're not finding. Even
>>> though meteorites contain amino acids--but no fossils.
>
>> Not quite right. If we're looking for earthlike planets, the searches so
>> far are not capable of detecting them.
>
> Not very bright are you?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_e
Perhaps not, but I'm better at reading than you are. This planet is only
about twice earth's mass, but the reason it can be detected is that it's
only 3 million miles from its primary. It's by no means an earthlike
planet. What you need is a planet not too different from earth in mass
-- OK on that score -- that's also within its primary's habitable zone.
Unfortunately, small planets that far out can't be detected with current
methods.
>> And SETI doesn't search for life.
>
> Like I said, not very bright.
How does SETI search for life?
>> SETI would not, in fact, be capable of finding earth.
>
> SETI can't find earth?
>
> That's funny. All they have to do is look down.
One can sympathize a bit with your inability to frame a real argument,
which forces you to depend on stupid word games. The really sad thing is
that you aren't even very good at the stupid word games.
>> It's still possible that life is
>> extremely common in the universe (or at least that most earthlike
>> planets have it). We don't have much data.
>
> Hmm, let me do the math.
>
> We have 9 planets here, 405 on the exoplanet database.
>
> 20 less than 10 earth mass's
>
> We have 4 *DEFINITE* earth size planet within 21 light years,
> 8 are considered "low mass" The extra 4 being about 5-8 earth mass's.
>
> Many more within 50 Light years (But we'll ignore them)
>
> 4 planets found in 1 solar system alone, 2 of them low mass 1 in the
> habital zone.
Which one is the low mass planet in the habitable zone?
> And seti has searched upto 200 light years.
>
> Average volume per habital size planet's = 4849.048261
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> Giving an average of ******6,910***** habitable mass planet's
>
> ***WITHIN*** seti's range.
>
> *********************************************************************
GIGO, I'm afraid. Your number above is based on nothing. Even putting
lots of asterisks next to it doesn't make it a valid estimate. And it
appears not to be an estimate of the number of habitable planets anyway.
> Now consider this.
>
> That 6,910 habitable size planets, is averaged based on the *KNOWN*
> planets we have so far.
No, it's based on nothing.
> I am sure there are thousand's more within SETI's 200 light year
> distance covered so far.
>
> And I'm even more sure that random signals can be picked up from much
> farther away than 200 light years.
>
> (That's just what they have *definitely* covered)
Again, you have managed to confuse "life" with "intelligent life that's
sending out signals much stronger than humans have done so far".
>>> I'm uncomfortable with the notion of life on Earth being a
>>> quintillion-to-one cosmic freak accident in the Universe. You should be
>>> too, given the prevalence of carbon, hydrogen, and such elements in the
>>> rest of the Universe.
>> I agree. But we have no data suggesting that life is rare.
>
> Apparently we do.
Only in your mind. What you have mentioned so far is a) a number of
extrasolar planets, none within their star's habitable zone and b)
failure of SETI to detect civilizations more advanced than earth's.
Neither of which is relevant.
John Harshman
>>> Average volume per habital size planet's = 4849.048261
>>> **********************************************************************
>>> Giving an average of ******6,910***** habitable mass planet's
>>> ***WITHIN*** seti's range.
>>> *********************************************************************
>>> That 6,910 habitable size planets, is averaged based on the *KNOWN*
>>> planets we have so far.
>>> distance covered so far.
>>> And I'm even more sure that random signals can be picked up from much
>>> farther away than 200 light years.
>> have been present on earth for about 100 of the 4.5B year history of
>> earth
>>
>> have to believe in ghosts as an agency of natural processes, patrick
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> the coming technological singularity in less than 140 years.
>
>
> 4Billion + 140 = singularity, and we'll probably be travelling through
> wormholes n shit.
>
>
> 14 Billion give or take a bit.
>
> Now what is 14 billion - 4Billion + 140?
>
> Oh that's right;
>
> FIND US!
>
That's the Fermi Paradox. Nothing to do with life, just with intelligent
life.
John Harshman
> On 16 Nov, 00:38, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Steven L. wrote:
>>> John Harshman wrote:
> .
>> Note, by the way, that even if life is ubiquitous on suitable planets,
>> the universe is still overwhelmingly composed of vacuum. You can't
>> really say it's designed for life. And the 99.99999 etc. is still correct.
>
> What gibberish.
>
> That's like saying the space shuttle isn't designed to carry
> astronoughts
> since the metal falls & the shuttle weighs 4470000 lb, against an
> astronaught's 210lb
I would like to think that even you could spell "astronaut".
> By your logic, the shuttle is;
>
> 100 - ((100 / 4 470 000) * 210) = 99.995302% designed *NOT* to carry
> astronoughts
>
> ****************************************************************
>
> Nice logic a space shuttle is 99.995302% designed *NOT* to carry
> paople.
>
> ****************************************************************
The problem with your comparison is that all that extra weight is
necessary to enable the shuttle to carry people. Is it your claim that
the structure of the universe (almost all vacuum, etc.) is necessary to
life? That hardly seems likely. Why not build a universe that's like,
say, a Dyson Sphere, in which the entire inner surface would be
habitable, without much vacuum at all? Or perhaps a flat surface with a
solid dome covering it: a nice, compact universe? Or a universe filled
with matter, with bubbles of air spaced frequently?
> And if we include the millions of tonnes of machinery it took to build
> the shuttle in the first place.
>
> You are saying a shuttle is 99.99999999999999999999999% designed *NOT*
> to carry astronoughts.
No, not saying any such thing. I would grant your point if all that
vacuum were indeed necessary for life. But it wouldn't seem to be.
John Harshman
>
> Lets say that evolution is a property of the universe.
> (By that, I mean as a useful error correction tool)
Let's not. Evolution is a property of life.
bpuharic
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Given that *certain* amino acids form quite easily as you point out
>below,
>it is highly likely that *ALL* life would be besed on them.
well...no. since we don't know how life got started, what amino acids
were present, we have no reason to suppose your idea is true
>
>
>Given the possible combinations that the chemistry could allow,
>It is actually GOBSMACKINGLY unbelieveable that life *isn't*
>everywhere.
looks like he's never read pauling's 'the nature of the chemical bond'
oh. creationsits don't know what a chemical is. if it doesn't involve
ghosts, they're against it
>
>Hmm, wonder where everyone is hiding?
i dunno. ghosts can hide pretty well. that's the basis of your view of
reality
bpuharic
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 16 Nov, 11:27, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:45:45 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>>
>>
>> what he ignores, of course, is that radio waves produced by humans
>> have been present on earth for about 100 of the 4.5B year history of
>> earth
>>
>> oh well...no one ever said being a creationist was easy...when you
>> have to believe in ghosts as an agency of natural processes, patrick
>> swayze is your patron saint, i guess- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>And what you fail to realise is that man has gone from Radio Waves to
>the coming technological singularity in less than 140 years.
meaningless.
>
>Now let me get this right.
>
>4Billion + 140 = singularity, and we'll probably be travelling through
>wormholes n shit.
really? care to prove that?
wait...you ghost-boy creationists didn't even know STARS
existed...thinking instead that angels pushed the planets and stars
around...
but NOW you're experts on relativity??
for 2000 years you relied on ghosts. now you think you know science.
you're gonna break your neck switching beliefs like that
>
>Now how old is the universe?
>
>14 Billion give or take a bit.
>
>Now what is 14 billion - 4Billion + 140?
>
>Oh that's right;
>
>These guys *THE ONES YOU CAN'T HERE* have had TEN BILLION YEARS TO
>FIND US!
PHWEEETT!!!
GOALPOST MOVING
the issue is not THEM FINDING US...it's US FINDING THEM
nice try, though. wrong. but keep going. there's always another
goalpost to be moved
spintronic
> spintronic wrote:
> > On 16 Nov, 00:38, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
.
.
> >> Not quite right. If we're looking for earthlike planets, the searches so
> >> far are not capable of detecting them.
What was that you said?
"not capable of detecting earthlike planets"?
Why for such an authority on the subject, you didn't half start
running with your shoes tied together.
No wonder your argument fell flat on it's face.
> > Not very bright are you?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_e
>
> Perhaps not,
I agree, for once.
> but I'm better at reading than you are.
Really?
> This planet is only about twice earth's mass, but the reason it can be detected is that it's
> only 3 million miles from its primary.
> It's by no means an earthlike planet.
And how much mass *defines* habitable?
It just so happens that next door you have Gliese 581 c & Gliese 581 d
5 & 8 times the mass of the earth, both in the habbitable zone.
But I guess your gonna say their not habbitable, because of their
mass?
Well you're wrong.
Gliese 876 d is also 8 times the earth mass, and hass g = 1.9
> What you need is a planet not too different from earth in mass
Rubbish
> -- OK on that score -- that's also within its primary's habitable zone.
Yes, I gave you 2 above.
> Unfortunately, small planets that far out can't be detected with current
> methods.
EXQUEESE ME?
There you go again. Spouting GIBBERISH you know nothing about.
> >> And SETI doesn't search for life.
>
> > Like I said, not very bright.
>
> How does SETI search for life?
You just said it doesn't.
> >> SETI would not, in fact, be capable of finding earth.
>
> > SETI can't find earth?
>
> > That's funny. All they have to do is look down.
>
> One can sympathize a bit with your inability to frame a real argument,
> which forces you to depend on stupid word games.
I seem to remember your argument's boiling down to a few spelling
flames. How is this any different?
> >> It's still possible that life is
> >> extremely common in the universe (or at least that most earthlike
> >> planets have it). We don't have much data.
>
> > Hmm, let me do the math.
>
> > We have 9 planets here, 405 on the exoplanet database.
>
> > 20 less than 10 earth mass's
>
> > We have 4 *DEFINITE* earth size planet within 21 light years,
> > 8 are considered "low mass" The extra 4 being about 5-8 earth mass's.
>
> > Many more within 50 Light years (But we'll ignore them)
>
> > 4 planets found in 1 solar system alone, 2 of them low mass 1 in the
> > habital zone.
>
> Which one is the low mass planet in the habitable zone?
>
> > And seti has searched upto 200 light years.
>
> > Average volume per habital size planet's = 4849.048261
>
> > **********************************************************************
>
> > Giving an average of ******6,910***** habitable mass planet's
>
> > ***WITHIN*** seti's range.
>
> > *********************************************************************
>
> GIGO, I'm afraid.
You can be afraid all you want. (I would be 2)
My 6,910 figure above is correct, based on the known planets within 21
light years.
That figure can only go up, not down.
> Your number above is based on nothing.
It's based on the average of earth like planets found so far within a
volume of radaii 21 light year.
The volume seti has searched is 200 light years radius, using the same
average gives 6,910 & counting.
> Even putting lots of asterisks next to it doesn't make it a valid estimate.
Saying; "valid math is not valid", does not make it invalid.
No matter how much you cry about it.
> And it appears not to be an estimate of the number of habitable planets anyway.
four eighths of them are.
> > Now consider this.
>
> > That 6,910 habitable size planets, is averaged based on the *KNOWN*
> > planets we have so far.
>
> No, it's based on nothing.
Why are you Lying?
> > I am sure there are thousand's more within SETI's 200 light year
> > distance covered so far.
>
> > And I'm even more sure that random signals can be picked up from much
> > farther away than 200 light years.
>
> > (That's just what they have *definitely* covered)
>
> Again, you have managed to confuse "life" with "intelligent life that's
> sending out signals much stronger than humans have done so far".
I did no such thing.
> >>> I'm uncomfortable with the notion of life on Earth being a
> >>> quintillion-to-one cosmic freak accident in the Universe. You should be
> >>> too, given the prevalence of carbon, hydrogen, and such elements in the
> >>> rest of the Universe.
> >> I agree. But we have no data suggesting that life is rare.
>
> > Apparently we do.
>
> Only in your mind.
Apparently not.
> What you have mentioned so far is a) a number of
> extrasolar planets, none within their star's habitable zone
Liar
> and b) failure of SETI to detect civilizations more advanced than earth's.
> Neither of which is relevant.
Since you lied about a), I didn't even read b).
spintronic
> That's the Fermi Paradox.
And one solution is we are alone.
spintronic
> spintronic wrote:
> > On 16 Nov, 00:38, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Steven L. wrote:
> >>> John Harshman wrote:
> > .
> > .
> >> Note, by the way, that even if life is ubiquitous on suitable planets,
> >> the universe is still overwhelmingly composed of vacuum. You can't
> >> really say it's designed for life. And the 99.99999 etc. is still correct.
>
> > What gibberish.
>
> > That's like saying the space shuttle isn't designed to carry
> > astronoughts
> > since the metal falls & the shuttle weighs 4470000 lb, against an
> > astronaught's 210lb
>
> I would like to think that even you could spell "astronaut".
.
> > By your logic, the shuttle is;
>
> > 100 - ((100 / 4 470 000) * 210) = 99.995302% designed *NOT* to carry
> > astronoughts
>
> > ****************************************************************
>
> > Nice logic a space shuttle is 99.995302% designed *NOT* to carry
> > people.
>
> > ****************************************************************
>
> The problem with your comparison is that all that extra weight is
> necessary to enable the shuttle to carry people. Is it your claim that
> the structure of the universe (almost all vacuum, etc.) is necessary to
> life?
Yes it is.
Where should we have the sun? In a box in on the windowsill?
How would a star start a thermonuclear reaction without the heavy
mass?
How would a star have a heavy mass without lots of space?
How would that energy be evenly dispersed without a vacuum between us
and the sun?
How would you have heavy elements without the matter cycle?
How would the universe continue without the mass cycle?
How could you have a mass cyclle without Dark Energy?
etc etc etc etc
> That hardly seems likely.
That's because you don't think!
> Why not build a universe that's like,
> say, a Dyson Sphere, in which the entire inner surface would be
> habitable, without much vacuum at all?
Where do you get energy from?
Obviously a star.
Where would that go?
Obviously in a vacuum.
> Or perhaps a flat surface with a solid dome covering it: a nice, compact universe? Or a universe filled
> with matter, with bubbles of air spaced frequently?
How heavy is your "flat surface" will it go thermonuclear? How heavy
is the dome? Will that go thermonuclear?
And what exactly is a "universe filled with matter, with bubbles of
air spaced frequently?"
Isn't air matter? Hydrogen?
Your actually kinda close to describing our universe there John, you
should be careful.
> > And if we include the millions of tonnes of machinery it took to build
> > the shuttle in the first place.
>
> > You are saying a shuttle is 99.99999999999999999999999% designed *NOT*
> > to carry astronoughts.
>
> No, not saying any such thing.
Sure you are.
In your ignorance, you are saying there is an *appartent* flaw in the
design of the universe, if the universe is designed to sustain life.
Or 99.999999999% of the universe is deadly, 70 of the earths surface
is deadly because its water etc etc.
Well I am saying;
The shuttle is supposed to be designed to carry a person into space.
Yet the components it's made from fall like a brick.
Using the above math. the shuttle is therfore 99.995302% designed
*NOT* to take people into space.
> I would grant your point if all that vacuum were indeed necessary for life.
Just explained how it is.
> But it wouldn't seem to be
That depends how clever you are.
spintronic
Is a genetic algorithm alive?
chris thompson
> On Nov 15, 2:47 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 2:29 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > DA posted this video
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
>
> > > And asked the above question.
>
> > > Since the video was BS, and he used the mass of the earth instead of
> > > the surface area we live on, and other gibberish innacuracies.
>
> > > Here is food for thought.
>
> > > In the video he claims that:
>
> > > 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927%
>
> > > of the universe cannot support human life.
> > > ****************************************************
>
> > > So by his logic.
>
> > > The surface area of this planet we call home is
> > > so finely tuned to support human life, that the total
> > > percentage of places in the entire universe that can
> > > do the job are;
>
> > > 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%
>
> > > And we happen to live on the only one (According to his math).
>
> > > I'd say that's damn good fine tuning, for the little planet we call
> > > home.
>
>
> > Interesting idea.
>
> > We can eliminate about 70% of it right off, since humans cannot
> > survive in water.
>
> > We can eliminate one whole continent- Antarctica- because humans
> > cannot survive there- and I doubt even you would claim it's fine-tuned
> > for human life.
>
> > Let's see. There's another set of land that's too high up for humans
> > to thrive- oh, we can survive in Nepal and Tibet and parts of the
> > Andean Cordillera, but would you say they are fine-tuned for human
> > life?
>
> > Now let's look at the land area covered by extreme deserts- the Gobi,
> > the Sahara, the Namib.
>
> > Fine-tuned? I'd say not.
>
> > We're fast running low on parts of the planet's surface, wouldn't you
> > say?
>
> > And now there's a huge area of the planet that seems more finely-tuned
> > for humans to act as incubators for parasites like liver flukes and
> > _Plasmodium_ wouldn't you say?
>
> > Finely-tuned? Heh.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> If it were not fine tuned then even evolution would not be able to
> take place. Right?
Did you ever consider that the human body is exquisitely fine-tuned as
an environment for:
Crimea-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus
Argentine hemorrhagic fever virus
Marburg virus
Ebola Zaire virus
Ebola Sudan virus
Yellow fever virus
Hanta virus
Lassa fever virus
Dengue fever virus
Let's not forget those bacteria that find the human body a fine-tuned
world:
Vibrio cholera
Bacillus anthracis
Mycobacterium leprae and M. tuberculosis
Corynebacterium diphtheriae
Bordetella pertussis
and the all-time world favorite, Yersinia pestis
and also some really nice Protists, too, like:
Trypanosoma brucei
Plasmodium falciparum
And then there's always the animal favorites:
Fasciola hepatica
Dracunculus medinensis
Wuchereria bancrofti
With fine-tuning from God like this, who needs a devil?
Chris
Kermit
Grrrr.
Should be: It is pretty certain that life as we know it - that is,
using the same basic biochemistry Earth life uses - would *NOT* be
John Harshman
The Fermi Paradox is irrelevant, whatever your solution.
John Harshman
> On Nov 16, 9:52 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> spintronic wrote:
>>> On 16 Nov, 00:38, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> .
> .
>
>>>> Not quite right. If we're looking for earthlike planets, the searches so
>>>> far are not capable of detecting them.
>
>
> What was that you said?
>
> "not capable of detecting earthlike planets"?
>
> Why for such an authority on the subject, you didn't half start
> running with your shoes tied together.
>
> No wonder your argument fell flat on it's face.
My argument is fine. Part of "earthlike" is location in the habitable
zone of a star.
>>> Not very bright are you?
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_e
>> Perhaps not,
>
>
> I agree, for once.
>
>> but I'm better at reading than you are.
>
>
> Really?
Yes. Read.
>> This planet is only about twice earth's mass, but the reason it can be detected is that it's
>> only 3 million miles from its primary.
>> It's by no means an earthlike planet.
>
> And how much mass *defines* habitable?
Mass is not the relevant variable here.
> It just so happens that next door you have Gliese 581 c & Gliese 581 d
>
> 5 & 8 times the mass of the earth, both in the habbitable zone.
>
> But I guess your gonna say their not habbitable, because of their
> mass?
>
> Well you're wrong.
I wouldn't claim that. Though there are reasons why massive planets
might not be habitable as a rule; it could be that runaway greenhouse,
as on Venus, is increasingly likely with increasing mass. But those
planets could indeed be habitable. We have no current way to find out.
Or do you have a way? And we have no current way to find out if any of
them has life, either.
> Gliese 876 d is also 8 times the earth mass, and hass g = 1.9
>
>
>> What you need is a planet not too different from earth in mass
>
> Rubbish
Surely even you would agree that there are both upper and lower mass limits.
>> -- OK on that score -- that's also within its primary's habitable zone.
>
>
> Yes, I gave you 2 above.
Note that neither is the one you originally brought up so triumphantly.
>> Unfortunately, small planets that far out can't be detected with current
>> methods.
>
>
> EXQUEESE ME?
>
> There you go again. Spouting GIBBERISH you know nothing about.
That depends on what you mean by "small". Earth-sized planets are
unlikely to be detected. What the upper limit on mass for "earthlike"
might be is unclear. It may be that the planets you named would qualify.
>>>> And SETI doesn't search for life.
>>> Like I said, not very bright.
>> How does SETI search for life?
>
> You just said it doesn't.
Yes, and you said it did. That was a request for you to clarify your
claim. Am I typing too fast?
>>>> SETI would not, in fact, be capable of finding earth.
>>> SETI can't find earth?
>>> That's funny. All they have to do is look down.
>> One can sympathize a bit with your inability to frame a real argument,
>> which forces you to depend on stupid word games.
>
> I seem to remember your argument's boiling down to a few spelling
> flames. How is this any different?
It wouldn't be, if you were remembering correctly.
>>>> It's still possible that life is
>>>> extremely common in the universe (or at least that most earthlike
>>>> planets have it). We don't have much data.
>>> Hmm, let me do the math.
>>> We have 9 planets here, 405 on the exoplanet database.
>>> 20 less than 10 earth mass's
>>> We have 4 *DEFINITE* earth size planet within 21 light years,
>>> 8 are considered "low mass" The extra 4 being about 5-8 earth mass's.
>>> Many more within 50 Light years (But we'll ignore them)
>>> 4 planets found in 1 solar system alone, 2 of them low mass 1 in the
>>> habital zone.
>> Which one is the low mass planet in the habitable zone?
>>
>>> And seti has searched upto 200 light years.
>>> Average volume per habital size planet's = 4849.048261
>>> **********************************************************************
>>> Giving an average of ******6,910***** habitable mass planet's
>>> ***WITHIN*** seti's range.
>>> *********************************************************************
>> GIGO, I'm afraid.
>
> You can be afraid all you want. (I would be 2)
>
> My 6,910 figure above is correct, based on the known planets within 21
> light years.
>
> That figure can only go up, not down.
But how is it relevant to the question?
>> Your number above is based on nothing.
>
> It's based on the average of earth like planets found so far within a
> volume of radaii 21 light year.
What is your definition of "earthlike"?
> The volume seti has searched is 200 light years radius, using the same
> average gives 6,910 & counting.
>
>> Even putting lots of asterisks next to it doesn't make it a valid estimate.
>
> Saying; "valid math is not valid", does not make it invalid.
I never said that. I said that your math is invalid. I don't say that
the arithmetic is wrong. I say that you don't have a meaningful estimate
of any relevant number.
> No matter how much you cry about it.
>
>> And it appears not to be an estimate of the number of habitable planets anyway.
>
> four eighths of them are.
Define "habitable" in this context.
>>> Now consider this.
>>> That 6,910 habitable size planets, is averaged based on the *KNOWN*
>>> planets we have so far.
>> No, it's based on nothing.
>
> Why are you Lying?
You haven't justified, and in fact don't seem to be aware of, any of
your assumptions.
>>> I am sure there are thousand's more within SETI's 200 light year
>>> distance covered so far.
>>> And I'm even more sure that random signals can be picked up from much
>>> farther away than 200 light years.
>>> (That's just what they have *definitely* covered)
>> Again, you have managed to confuse "life" with "intelligent life that's
>> sending out signals much stronger than humans have done so far".
>
> I did no such thing.
Yes you did. You are arguing that life is rare based on our inability to
detect radio signals. Unless you think bacteria commonly send out
signals detectable by SETI, your argument says nothing about life.
>>>>> I'm uncomfortable with the notion of life on Earth being a
>>>>> quintillion-to-one cosmic freak accident in the Universe. You should be
>>>>> too, given the prevalence of carbon, hydrogen, and such elements in the
>>>>> rest of the Universe.
>>>> I agree. But we have no data suggesting that life is rare.
>>> Apparently we do.
>> Only in your mind.
>
> Apparently not.
>
>> What you have mentioned so far is a) a number of
>> extrasolar planets, none within their star's habitable zone
>
> Liar
Up to that point you had not. You have now mentioned two, if indeed you
are correct on your facts.
>> and b) failure of SETI to detect civilizations more advanced than earth's.
>> Neither of which is relevant.
>
> Since you lied about a), I didn't even read b).
Like I said, you need to improve your reading skills.
John Harshman
I await your argument.
> Where should we have the sun? In a box in on the windowsill?
>
> How would a star start a thermonuclear reaction without the heavy
> mass?
> How would a star have a heavy mass without lots of space?
> How would that energy be evenly dispersed without a vacuum between us
> and the sun?
>
> How would you have heavy elements without the matter cycle?
>
> How would the universe continue without the mass cycle?
>
> How could you have a mass cyclle without Dark Energy?
>
> etc etc etc etc
None of that seems necessary for life. How about a universe in which the
sun is a small object a few hundred miles away, embedded in a solid
dome? Heavy elements could be created at the beginning, just like the
rest of the universe. Nobody needs a mass cycle or dark energy.
>> That hardly seems likely.
>
>
> That's because you don't think!
>
>> Why not build a universe that's like,
>> say, a Dyson Sphere, in which the entire inner surface would be
>> habitable, without much vacuum at all?
>
> Where do you get energy from?
>
> Obviously a star.
That's where we get it, but I don't see why that would be necessary in a
created universe. Are you saying that god couldn't create a universe in
which energy just radiated from the sky, for example?
> Where would that go?
>
> Obviously in a vacuum.
The Dyson sphere could have a star at its center. I see no reason why a
vacuum would be necessary, but the created atmosphere could indeed be
created to end a short distance "above" the surface of the sphere, if
you liked.
>> Or perhaps a flat surface with a solid dome covering it: a nice, compact universe? Or a universe filled
>> with matter, with bubbles of air spaced frequently?
>
> How heavy is your "flat surface" will it go thermonuclear? How heavy
> is the dome? Will that go thermonuclear?
Mere engineering details, the sort of thing an omnipotent creator could
handle easily.
> And what exactly is a "universe filled with matter, with bubbles of
> air spaced frequently?"
>
> Isn't air matter? Hydrogen?
Yes, it's matter. Point?
> Your actually kinda close to describing our universe there John, you
> should be careful.
No, our universe is mostly empty. Consider a unverse that was mostly
full instead. Less wasted space.
>>> And if we include the millions of tonnes of machinery it took to build
>>> the shuttle in the first place.
>>> You are saying a shuttle is 99.99999999999999999999999% designed *NOT*
>>> to carry astronoughts.
>> No, not saying any such thing.
>
> Sure you are.
>
> In your ignorance, you are saying there is an *appartent* flaw in the
> design of the universe, if the universe is designed to sustain life.
>
> Or 99.999999999% of the universe is deadly, 70 of the earths surface
> is deadly because its water etc etc.
>
> Well I am saying;
>
> The shuttle is supposed to be designed to carry a person into space.
>
> Yet the components it's made from fall like a brick.
>
> Using the above math. the shuttle is therfore 99.995302% designed
> *NOT* to take people into space.
But that's idiot math that doesn't compare at all to what I'm saying.
Your strawman burns nicely, but we can't read anything in its glow.
>> I would grant your point if all that vacuum were indeed necessary for life.
>
> Just explained how it is.
No, you didn't. What you explained is how all the vacuum is necessary
for the universe to be just like it is. But that doesn't mean it's
necessary for life.
>> But it wouldn't seem to be
>
>how clever you are.
Thanks. Do you like unmarked snips as much as I do? Perhaps you'd like
to stop making them.
John Harshman
Still, you have a point. Evolution is a property of certain types of
systems, of which life is the only natural example we have. One can
simulate relevant aspects of life, and so get a form of evolution.
Regardless, evolution is not a property of the universe, but of certain
types of systems. I would suggest that any system having reproduction
with inheritance and variation will necessarily also feature evolution.
But that doesn't seem to be your claim.
Earle Jones
<8dd4122b-e584-426f...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 4:59�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 2:47�pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 15, 2:29�pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > DA posted this video
> >
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
> >
> > > > And asked the above question.
*
The universe might be fine-tuned for life, but I would agree with
Harshman that the kind of life it is fine-tuned for is anaerobic
bacteria.
earle
*
chris thompson
> In article
> <8dd4122b-e584-426f-9b26-cdc94a245...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
> chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 4:59 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 15, 2:47 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 15, 2:29 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > DA posted this video
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
>
> > > > > And asked the above question.
>
> *
> The universe might be fine-tuned for life, but I would agree with
> Harshman that the kind of life it is fine-tuned for is anaerobic
> bacteria.
>
> earle
> *
Maybe.
It could be that the whole point of human existence is that we were
designed to invent canning processes that nurture the growth of
Clostridium botulinum. Someone had to rescue them from those damnable
cyanobacteria, no?
Chris
spintronic
.
> > It just so happens that next door you have Gliese 581 c & Gliese 581 d
>
> > 5 & 8 times the mass of the earth, both in the habbitable zone.
>
> > But I guess your gonna say their not habbitable, because of their
> > mass?
>
> > Well you're wrong.
>
> I wouldn't claim that.
For the first planet I showed you, 1.9 earth mass's, you said
something like "but not to different from earth in mass"
> Though there are reasons why massive planets
> might not be habitable as a rule; it could be that runaway greenhouse,
> as on Venus, is increasingly likely with increasing mass.
Theres a million & 1 other variables like "magnetif field strength",
"angular velocity", composition, etc etc.
> But those planets could indeed be habitable. We have no current way to find out.
> Or do you have a way?
Other than a bigger telescope & refined spectral analysis, no.
> And we have no current way to find out if any of
> them has life, either.
>
> > Gliese 876 d is also 8 times the earth mass, and hass g = 1.9
>
> >> What you need is a planet not too different from earth in mass
>
> > Rubbish
>
> Surely even you would agree that there are both upper and lower mass limits.
In regards to it's ability to prevt life, I wouldn't be suprised if
life could survive
on jupiter.or on a 10Kg rock.
Some bacteria can actually live in space.
> >> -- OK on that score -- that's also within its primary's habitable zone.
>
> > Yes, I gave you 2 above.
>
> Note that neither is the one you originally brought up so triumphantly.
And?
They were part of my original 8.
> >> Unfortunately, small planets that far out can't be detected with current
> >> methods.
>
> > EXQUEESE ME?
>
> > There you go again. Spouting GIBBERISH you know nothing about.
>
> That depends on what you mean by "small". Earth-sized planets are
> unlikely to be detected.
It depends what you mean by Small".
Gliese 876 d has 8.5* the mass, yet only twice the radius,
my first offering had twice the mass.
> What the upper limit on mass for "earthlike"
> might be is unclear. It may be that the planets you named would qualify.
I'm going off the term "Superearth",http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-
Earth
> >>>> And SETI doesn't search for life.
> >>> Like I said, not very bright.
> >> How does SETI search for life?
>
> > You just said it doesn't.
>
> Yes, and you said it did. That was a request for you to clarify your
> claim. Am I typing too fast?
Some say "look", some say "listen".
I know what you're getting at. The "I" in SETI.
> >>>> SETI would not, in fact, be capable of finding earth.
> >>> SETI can't find earth?
> >>> That's funny. All they have to do is look down.
> >> One can sympathize a bit with your inability to frame a real argument,
> >> which forces you to depend on stupid word games.
>
> > I seem to remember your argument's boiling down to a few spelling
> > flames. How is this any different?
>
> It wouldn't be, if you were remembering correctly.
Sure you did.
> >>>> It's still possible that life is
> >>>> extremely common in the universe (or at least that most earthlike
> >>>> planets have it). We don't have much data.
> >>> Hmm, let me do the math.
> >>> We have 9 planets here, 405 on the exoplanet database.
> >>> 20 less than 10 earth mass's
> >>> We have 4 *DEFINITE* earth size planet within 21 light years,
> >>> 8 are considered "low mass" The extra 4 being about 5-8 earth mass's.
> >>> Many more within 50 Light years (But we'll ignore them)
> >>> 4 planets found in 1 solar system alone, 2 of them low mass 1 in the
> >>> habital zone.
> >> Which one is the low mass planet in the habitable zone?
>
> >>> And seti has searched upto 200 light years.
> >>> Average volume per habital size planet's = 4849.048261
> >>> **********************************************************************
> >>> Giving an average of ******6,910***** habitable mass planet's
> >>> ***WITHIN*** seti's range.
> >>> *********************************************************************
> >> GIGO, I'm afraid.
>
> > You can be afraid all you want. (I would be 2)
>
> > My 6,910 figure above is correct, based on the known planets within 21
> > light years.
>
> > That figure can only go up, not down.
>
> But how is it relevant to the question?
Theres at least 3,405 planets (in a habbitable zone) & within 200
light year's Of SETI's search distance.
Yet only at least 8 in their 21 Light year search distance.
Do you see the exponential growth?
That's at least about 3-million, habbitable planets in just a 2000
Light year distance.
And i'm guessing most are equal or older than 4 billion years old.
So where is everyone?
And don't forget, SETI does search farther than 200 years, that's just
what theyv'e definitely covered.
> >> Your number above is based on nothing.
>
> > It's based on the average of earth like planets found so far within a
> > volume of radaii 21 light year.
>
> What is your definition of "earthlike"?
Below 10 Earth mass's and in the habbitable zone.
Though I only counted the ones below 8.5 Earth mass's.
> > The volume seti has searched is 200 light years radius, using the same
> > average gives 6,910 & counting.
>
> >> Even putting lots of asterisks next to it doesn't make it a valid estimate.
>
> > Saying; "valid math is not valid", does not make it invalid.
>
> I never said that. I said that your math is invalid. I don't say that
> the arithmetic is wrong. I say that you don't have a meaningful estimate
> of any relevant number.
Of course I have a meaningful estimate.
There are 405 planets on the database. The distribution of gas giants
seem's constant.
Presumably so are the habbitable planets.
There are others discovered. I only counted the ones closer than 21
light years.
> > No matter how much you cry about it.
>
> >> And it appears not to be an estimate of the number of habitable planets anyway.
>
> > four eighths of them are.
>
> Define "habitable" in this context.
Less than 10 Earth mass's and in the habbitable zone.
And theres probably more, many more. Some may have a greenhouse effect
just far of the habitable zone which evens the temperature.
I bet theres about 20 - 30 million habbitable planets within 2000
light years,
We haven't even counted the ones that are earth or mars size.
> >>> Now consider this.
> >>> That 6,910 habitable size planets, is averaged based on the *KNOWN*
> >>> planets we have so far.
> >> No, it's based on nothing.
>
> > Why are you Lying?
>
> You haven't justified, and in fact don't seem to be aware of, any of
> your assumptions.
I have justified it, we know of 8 with less than 10 Earth mass's less
than 21 light years away.
4 are definitely habbitable.
We haven't even counted earth or mars size planets.
We haven't counted greenhouse planets just far of the habbitable zone,
or the opposite effect just inside.
There are millions & millions of habbitable planets in less than 2000
light years.
Where is everyone?
> >>> I am sure there are thousand's more within SETI's 200 light year
> >>> distance covered so far.
> >>> And I'm even more sure that random signals can be picked up from much
> >>> farther away than 200 light years.
> >>> (That's just what they have *definitely* covered)
> >> Again, you have managed to confuse "life" with "intelligent life that's
> >> sending out signals much stronger than humans have done so far".
>
> > I did no such thing.
>
> Yes you did. You are arguing that life is rare based on our inability to
> detect radio signals. Unless you think bacteria commonly send out
> signals detectable by SETI, your argument says nothing about life.
There is other searches other than SETI.
There are searches for planets that have earth-like atmospheres
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/10/20/organic-molecules-detected-in-exoplanet-atmosphere/
HD 209458b
HD 189733b,
> >>>>> I'm uncomfortable with the notion of life on Earth being a
> >>>>> quintillion-to-one cosmic freak accident in the Universe. You should be
> >>>>> too, given the prevalence of carbon, hydrogen, and such elements in the
> >>>>> rest of the Universe.
> >>>> I agree. But we have no data suggesting that life is rare.
> >>> Apparently we do.
> >> Only in your mind.
>
> > Apparently not.
>
> >> What you have mentioned so far is a) a number of
> >> extrasolar planets, none within their star's habitable zone
>
> > Liar
>
> Up to that point you had not. You have now mentioned two, if indeed you
> are correct on your facts.
Look them up, you have their names.
Gliese 581 c
Gliese 581 d
Both in 1 system.
bpuharic
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>How would you have heavy elements without the matter cycle?
>
>How would the universe continue without the mass cycle?
>
>How could you have a mass cyclle without Dark Energy?
interesting watching a creationistm who thinks ghosts are responsible
for life, talking about things that creationism can't begin to
understand
a nice little oxymoron in creationist ideology
spintronic
> > Yes it is.
>
> I await your argument.
>
> > Where should we have the sun? In a box in on the windowsill?
>
> > How would a star start a thermonuclear reaction without the heavy
> > mass?
> > How would a star have a heavy mass without lots of space?
> > How would that energy be evenly dispersed without a vacuum between us
> > and the sun?
>
> > How would you have heavy elements without the matter cycle?
>
> > How would the universe continue without the mass cycle?
>
> > How could you have a mass cyclle without Dark Energy?
>
> > etc etc etc etc
>
> None of that seems necessary for life. How about a universe in which the
> sun is a small object
How does it generate nuclear fusion?
> a few hundred miles away,
We'd burn.
> embedded in a solid dome?
How would it let the heat out?
> Heavy elements could be created at the beginning, just like the
> rest of the universe. Nobody needs a mass cycle or dark energy.
Of course you do.
As mass falls/coalesse's it gives off DE which pushes the collapse of
distant matter away.
The mass is reduced, and thus recycled.
The relative wavelengths of the DE shortens relative to particles
coming the other way, which then form new particles.
Black holes are inhibited, And those objects teatering on the brink,
have just made a major recycle of matter in the process of forming.
That matter / radiation goes on to coalesse & form new nebula/stars.
> >> That hardly seems likely.
>
> > That's because you don't think!
>
> >> Why not build a universe that's like,
> >> say, a Dyson Sphere, in which the entire inner surface would be
> >> habitable, without much vacuum at all?
>
> > Where do you get energy from?
>
> > Obviously a star.
>
> That's where we get it, but I don't see why that would be necessary in a
> created universe. Are you saying that god couldn't create a universe in
> which energy just radiated from the sky, for example?
Why would he do that?
Remember my take 2 logical arguments and croos them to make a 3rd
illogical one?
You are now doing the opposite.
You are taking stupid logic, and trying to pass it of as logical. (It
doesn't work that way).
> > Where would that go?
>
> > Obviously in a vacuum.
>
> The Dyson sphere could have a star at its center.
You said the energy came radiated from the sky/outer dome inwards,
which is it?
And a Dyson sphere, still requires a universe like ours.
A Dyson sphere wouldn't work anyway.
Any energy the satellites gain, would also carry momentum that pushes
them away.
It would take exactly the same energy to keep the satellites in place
as they could collect.
> I see no reason why a vacuum would be necessary,
I do
It's either vacuum or not.
*Not*; means *FILLED* with matter/gas.
That carries gravity, and the universe would just crunch together.
.
> but the created atmosphere could indeed be
> created to end a short distance "above" the surface of the sphere, if
> you liked.
So don't have a vacuum on the surface of the sphere,
but where the atmosphere ends have a vacuum?
That does rather sound like our earth?
> >> Or perhaps a flat surface with a solid dome covering it: a nice, compact universe? Or a universe filled
> >> with matter, with bubbles of air spaced frequently?
>
> > How heavy is your "flat surface" will it go thermonuclear? How heavy
> > is the dome? Will that go thermonuclear?
>
> Mere engineering details, the sort of thing an omnipotent creator could
> handle easily.
So you want him to create a flat thermonuclear surface,
with a thermonuclear dome on top just so he can magically cool it down
for you?.
Why would you want something silly like that?
My guess; God, "being clever and all", did it how it is. The right
way.
> > And what exactly is a "universe filled with matter, with bubbles of
> > air spaced frequently?"
>
> > Isn't air matter? Hydrogen?
>
> Yes, it's matter. Point?
Well how can you have a room filled with gas, and then have "bubbles
of gas", with in that room of gas?
> > Your actually kinda close to describing our universe there John, you
> > should be careful.
>
> No, our universe is mostly empty. Consider a unverse that was mostly
> full instead. Less wasted space.
Apart from the big crunce, and we'de all be dead again.
What would be the point?
If you buy a big house luxurious, with plenty of space do you then buy
spacesaver-closets and complain the house is wasting space?
Why don't we all live 20 to a room? then we could really save space.
When you have an infinite supply of empty space, its kinda pointless
to conserve it.
> >>> And if we include the millions of tonnes of machinery it took to build
> >>> the shuttle in the first place.
> >>> You are saying a shuttle is 99.99999999999999999999999% designed *NOT*
> >>> to carry astronoughts.
> >> No, not saying any such thing.
>
> > Sure you are.
>
> > In your ignorance, you are saying there is an *appartent* flaw in the
> > design of the universe, if the universe is designed to sustain life.
>
> > Or 99.999999999% of the universe is deadly, 70 of the earths surface
> > is deadly because its water etc etc.
>
> > Well I am saying;
>
> > The shuttle is supposed to be designed to carry a person into space.
>
> > Yet the components it's made from fall like a brick.
>
> > Using the above math. the shuttle is therfore 99.995302% designed
> > *NOT* to take people into space.
>
> But that's idiot math that doesn't compare at all to what I'm saying.
> Your strawman burns nicely, but we can't read anything in its glow.
The strawman is burning next to yours. In fact they are identical in
their stupidness.
And it compares perfectly to what your saying.
Your saying;
The universe is not tuned for life because 99.9999%(whatever) is
counterproductive *TO* life, relative to a persons biology.
I am saying;
The shuttle is not designed to carry people because 99.9999%(whatever)
is counterproductive *TO* lift, relative to a persons weight.
> >> I would grant your point if all that vacuum were indeed necessary for life.
>
> > Just explained how it is.
>
> No, you didn't. What you explained is how all the vacuum is necessary
> for the universe to be just like it is. But that doesn't mean it's
> necessary for life.
You said liquid water is necessary for life, yet moan that we have an
abundance.
You said a planet must be in the habbitable zone, yet moan we have
heat from the sun.
You said you want to search for ET, yet moan you want a vacuumless
sky.
All you do is moan.
spintronic
> spintronic wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 10:02 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> spintronic wrote:
.
> >>> Lets say that evolution is a property of the universe.
> >>> (By that, I mean as a useful error correction tool)
> >> Let's not. Evolution is a property of life.
>
> > Is a genetic algorithm alive?
>
> Do genetic algorithms evolve?
They can do. It depends how you *DESIGN* them.
> Still, you have a point. Evolution is a property of certain types of
> systems,
Lets call the universe a "system".
> of which life is the only natural example we have.
Does steam evolve?
If your answer is no,
Consider the fact that the molecules that leave the surface tension
have a certain selection criteria.
They require a certain amount of energy to leave, only the ones with
that energy can.
As for them reproducing? It's called condensation.
> One can simulate relevant aspects of life, and so get a form of evolution.
> Regardless, evolution is not a property of the universe,
I disagree.
> but of certain types of systems. I would suggest that any system having reproduction
> with inheritance and variation will necessarily also feature evolution.
So we can count stars, particles, gases, crystals etc etc.
Are they alive?
And does that pretty much cover everything as in "property of the
universe"?
> But that doesn't seem to be your claim.
My claim, is that it is a property of the universe, and of life.
But what you would call speciation, I would call garbage, and what you
call evolution, I would call error correction.
But regardless. My point is;
Given that evolution & abiogenesis are supposed to be properties of
the universe.
Where is everyone?
Boikat
> On 16 Nov, 14:46, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 3:49 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 16 Nov, 00:38, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:> Steven L. wrote:
> > > > > John Harshman wrote:
>
> > > .
> > > .
>
> > > > Note, by the way, that even if life is ubiquitous on suitable planets,
> > > > the universe is still overwhelmingly composed of vacuum. You can't
> > > > really say it's designed for life. And the 99.99999 etc. is still correct.
>
> > > What gibberish.
>
> > > That's like saying the space shuttle isn't designed to carry
> > > astronoughts
> > > since the metal falls & the shuttle weighs 4470000 lb, against an
> > > astronaught's 210lb
>
>
> > > 100 - ((100 / 4 470 000) * 210) = 99.995302% designed *NOT* to carry
> > > astronoughts
>
> > > ****************************************************************
>
> > > Nice logic a space shuttle is 99.995302% designed *NOT* to carry
>
> > > ****************************************************************
>
> > > And if we include the millions of tonnes of machinery it took to build
> > > the shuttle in the first place.
>
> .
>
> > > You are saying a shuttle is 99.99999999999999999999999% designed *NOT*
> > > to carry astronoughts.
>
> > support life on Earth?
>
> That's a stupid question.
>
Translation: "Shit!"
> What part of the shuttle besides the cockpit is needed to carry an
> astronaut into space?
Pretty much all of it. To bad for your faulty analogy, but the
Universe is not a space shuttle.
Now, answer my question: Aside from the Earth itself, the moon (for
tides) and the Sun (for obvious reasons) is needed for life to exist
on Earth? If it's such a "upid quetion", start with something simple
to illiustrate the stupidity, like explaining the detriment of all the
galazies, besides the Milky Way galaxy, suddenly no longer being in
existence. If my question is to stupid, it should be trivial to
answer that question.
Boikat
Boikat
> On 16 Nov, 14:57, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Nov 16, 8:08 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> .
> .
>
> > > > Damn stupid, to create so much waste space,
>
> > > Tell that to NASA when their building their shuttles
>
> > Damn, you're stupid, and so is your analogy. Aside from the Sun, the
> > Moon, and naturally the Earth itself, what part of the rest of the
> > Universe is needed for life to exist on Earth?
>
> Apart from the cockpit, what parts of the shuttle are needed to get an
> astronaught into space?
Evasion noted.
>
> > All the bits and pieces of teh shuttle are needed to get a payload into space.
>
> Ah..
But that has nothing to do with the earths "dependence" on the rest of
the universe, which you've evaded.
>
> > How does that equate to the rest of the Universe is needed to support life on
> > Earth?
>
> ******************************************************************************
> How many (how do you say) *BITS & PIECES* are needed for the shuttle
> to support the astronauts?
>
> A few thousand, and lots of *dead weight*?
> *******************************************************************************
Evasion noted.
>
> How many (how do you say) *BITS & PIECES* are needed to support life
> in our universe?
I was asking specifically about life on Earth. Evasion on your part,
noted.
>
> About 600 particles and lots of *dead weight*!
> ********************************************************************************
>
> I can see it, I wonder why your so thick that you can't?
I wonder why you cannot answer a simple question. I guess it's
because it exposes the fallacy of your analogy.
Boikat