Lori, perhaps I should clarify the fear of death thing, I meant that as the origins of religion...Religious belief is also subject to evolution therefore what your belief is based on would obviously be different to the basis for forming a religion. ------------------ work to LIVE...don't live to WORK.
Lori-- Let's see if I can do this without offense. This is at least a version of an idea I once held. I have not rejected it outright. However, I've hit a wall, and if you've got a way around it, I'd like to know. Simply--If we assume that "soul activity" is manifest in natural processes, what is the device? What is the communicative media between the body and the soul? There is no way to detect it, no way to quantify it, and no way to track it. If the signal of the soul has that direct of interaction, what is its interface? One might rule that every cell is the interface, so that we don't need an LPT1 or an RCA connector to interact with spirit and soul, but that's not only speculative, but I found it to be desperately so, constructing theoretic devices in order to make a logjammed hypothesis carry through. I once had a massive hot-flash while riding the Psilocybin Express, which unfortunately hit me while upon the porcelain throne. I fell off and hit the bathroom floor. I would have written it up as drug-related, except that I found out that one of my friends was found unconscious and feverish in her apartment fifteen minutes later (across town), and yet another friend of mine was hospitalized after passing out in a bar (having just arrived, waiting for that first beer) dead-smack in the middle of that fifteen-minute envelope. Drugs? Maybe. I was on 'em. One friend may have been, and the other was still sober for the evening. Mystical connection? I don't know. But while trying to figure it out, I reinforced some notions I have about the subtleties of my body, to say the least, and perhaps the human body in general. All of this to ask: * Drugs? Maybe. Probable cause for me, since I was coming down from a fine trip to the end of the universe. But it's not consistent throughout the experience. * Common illness? Perhaps, but unlikely. While my friend who went down at home might have shared a cold or something with me, that still doesn't explain the third member of the troika. * Psych conditions? I'm of the opinion that if we compare the state of people's minds today to the standards used to describe psychological deviance merely fifteen years ago, we'd find that the majority of the population is deviant. Even more-so by today's standards (Shy? Get a shrink to prescribe you drugs!) So I started looking at other things: * Physical exertion? Unlikely, for as crude as such declarations might be, I've endured greater efforts. * Posture? Ah ... now here comes my likely candidate for subtlety. I'm not a chiropracter, and don't have one in retainer, but it seems there's something to that spinal stuff. I had a friend who was fearing bad drugs in his past because he was mildly hallucinating for four days when he hadn't taken any acid. The noise his back made when it popped vertically was tremendous, and the hallucinatory symptoms abated immediately. I have broken fevers by loosening up pinched nerves and inflamed joints in my back, neck, and shoulders. And from that comes a certain question, this at the center of your heat: Do you have a preferred posture during prayer? What subtle habits of your daily life might cause neck, back, or shoulder stress? Had you been sick (virally) in the previous two weeks? And so on, and so forth. It's never that I actually want to say that these things aren't divine experiences. But I think people rush to those conclusions and raise their hopes unnecessarily. Recently, I've heard of several miraculous, divine visions. I will say, in advance, that the following are just examples ... there's a point to how ludicrous they seem. But, for the record, in recent times, I have heard of Jesus and/or Mary appearing: * In a corn tortilla * In the bark of a tree (in the news this week) * In the iridescent coating on the back of a highway sign near Yakima, Washington. * In the grain of wood veneer on a church door. * In a mirage inside a church office (the pastor was able to determine, shortly after the media frenzy, that the mirage was sunlight through a stained glass window, reflecting off two perfectly positioned glass or porcelain lampshades). * In the scorch-pattern on a piece of toast. Now then ... all I'm after is that these people, too trusted on faith that what they were seeing is real; hundreds of them, who turned out and could be describing any of these events with the same passion and vitriol you display. Hopefully, I can convey to you that it isn't that anyone truly wants to disbelieve your experiences. But since we all tend to rush to conclusions from time to time, I just thought I'd throw out a few ideas. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (Edits to fix punctuation and tags) ------------------ The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett) [This message has been edited by tiassa (edited March 15, 2000).]
hi boris do you remember me? its funny you are still here with all this theme again go roung circles. You already yet found the answer its so weird you still cant see it Why??? i still wonder.
Boris: You missed the point of my cultural moral values post, as well as my age. I was probably around, young man when your father was a gleam in his father's eye. But I do admit it was a hurried post, not well edited, and perhaps you are to be forgiven for failing to see the point. So I will try again. (BTW have you read "Lord of the Flies" about a band of children left alone on an island? I rather suspect not. I see you missed Ayn Rand. Figures. You really should widen your reading habits. There is much to be said for a liberal education. But I digress.) There are no moral absolutes, Boris. In fact science is beginning to suggest there are no absolutes at all. Oh, I just remembered, another young man challenged me on this with the famous 2+2=4 example. I must remember to answer him. But I digress again. (See, I told you I was an old man, can't stay on subject.) Because there are no moral absolutes and because unlike the law of gravity, morals are not obvious, they have to be taught. And if not taught to children those children often grow up to be quite unpleasant persons. Which is, of course, the major rallying cry of groups like the Christian Coalition. And the justification for their forcing the rest of us to act as we believed the same fairy takes they do. A position as opposed to human freedom as anything Stalin ever thought up. Still, as you suggest, some values do seem to recur often across both time and space. Now why is that? Let me digress once more, but this really is on point, I promise. I remember when I was sophomore, lo these many years ago, and went to my first class in political theory. A world-renowned expert taught it and I can still hear him saying, almost the first words of class, "All societies and all politics arise from this fact. In any sufficiently large group of human beings the number who are strong is much smaller than the number who are weak. All politics is about this power difference. You will never understand how societies work, how politics works, why some political systems succeed and others don't, until you understand and appreciate this simple fact." As I say, I was a sophomore then, full of myself, sure of every thought, (perhaps you know the feeling) and didn't get out of Hans Morgenthau's class all I should have. But the years have taught me what I failed to learn from old Hans. Societies compete with each other and those that are well organized, orderly, able to hold together over a long period, able to deal with the power differences in the population, succeed. They conquer or absorb others less successful at these crucial tasks. To take your cheating example, a society that lets its members prey on each other, lets the stronger, either physically or mentally, exploit the weaker, ultimately fails. And it fails because there are many more weak members. And eventually the weaker ones will unite and over power the fewer, even if those few are stronger. ("Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!") Or the weaker may simply leave and join other groups, or start one of their own. (Sound familiar?) But the original society will either change or fail. But all of this has nothing to do with absolute moral values. It has to do with, you ready for this, "survival of the fittest." That's right, we are back with Darwin, only now we are talking about societies instead of organisms. There is no more "moral value" in fair play than there is in the opposed thumb. Both are effective adaptations to the world around them, no more no less. So we are taught not to cheat not because it is "morally right" but because it works! Oxygen has it right in his recent post. Religion was invented, (will maybe not invented just followed by) people with weak minds who need "Threats of Hell and Hopes of Paradise to come" to keep them from doing things that hurt the society at large. Moses banned pork because he noticed that many who eat it got sick, a bad thing. He wrote down those 10 commandments not because god told him to but because he realized that following those rules made his band of wanderers a stronger group. He told them that story about the hand of god and the burning bush because he wanted them to follow his rules and felt, rightly, that if he convinced them he was speaking on behalf of some all-powerful being they would be more inclined to follow his teachings. Survival, young man, that is the guiding principal, controls both biology and societies. And, if you think about it, it has to be that way. That is the only principal that insures that both the individual organism and the society in which it lives, prospers. ------------------ The Sailor says, remember Omar was right.
SailorMike, Sorry about the age bit, all I meant to say is that your post sounded incoherent (and I've seen plenty of that in typical school essays -- thus the association with teenagers.) And yes, I did read "Lord of the Flies". In fact I used to be quite a bookworm -- until I got myself into this whole science/research thing, and found it even more addictive... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I would argue that there indeed are moral absolutes, but they are not absolute in a universal sense of the word -- they are only absolute when it comes to the human species. They are determined by our built-in emotional apparatus. They may not be anything so clear-cut as "thou shalt not kill" -- but they are ultimately what enables us to define right vs. wrong. After all, such moral values are, at least initially, based on what "feels" right or wrong. This is not to say that the emotional apparatus is a very good moral guide, or never malfunctions, or cannot be overridden by higher cognition -- but it does provide those all-important behavioral biases, thus encouraging social interactions and instigating the formation of civilization to begin with. So, I would say that if we are looking for the ultimate origin of morality within human civilizations, then the human emotional response is definitely it. If we are looking at origins beyond (or should I say before) the human species, then survival of the fittest has a certain relevance. What you are focusing on, is the operation of moral structures after they had already developed into socially-enforced doctrines. And even there I happen to not entirely agree with your Social Darwinist statements. While it is true that social stability owes much to religious and moral structure, you cannot say that what we moderns would term "good" morality ensures survival of civilizations any more than "bad" morality. For example, look at what happened to the Holy Roman Empire -- it got destroyed by barbarians. The Tibetans are living under the Chinese boot. Then there are the Nazis -- if they won the war, most "benign" civilizations we know today would be heading for extinction. This is not to say that the Nazis (or any other "bad" civilization -- pick your favorite) did not possess morality -- it's just that some of their precepts would not be what you (hopefully) or I would find acceptable. But ultimately, morality is a direct consequence of biological behavioral biases that make us into social animals. Notice that morality <u>only</u> makes sense in a social context. Hence, to find the ultimate foundations of morality you have to look at what collects humans into tribes, lionesses into prides, sheep into herds, wolves into packs, chimps into (hmmm... what's the word for a group of chimps? is it still "tribe"?), etc. So, with respect to the survival of the fittest, I agree -- but only partially. In essense, I'm saying that morality predates civilization as a biological mechanism -- while you are saying that morality is a purely social phenomenon that emerges in the context of civilization as a property of fitness. Naturally, I agree with my position Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ I am; therefore I think. [This message has been edited by Boris (edited March 27, 2000).]
A terribly unfortunate twist for evolution is the absence of any constructive mechanism by which evolution occurs. The only two mechanisms are natural selection, which kills and does nothing to actively promote change; and its only changing mechanism, random mutation, which is almost never ever helpful. One also has to take under consideration that almost all species have different numbers of chromosomes, making such diversity impossible. You see, we as humans have 46 chromosomes, or two pairs of 23. The LEAST harmful change in that number is in the case of people who have Down’s Syndrome. They are missing a 21st chromosome. This, as I said is the LEAST harmful change, and as you have no doubt noticed has devastating effects on people who suffer from Down’s Syndrome. You cannot better the population of organisms of the planet by means of chabging the number of chromasomes in a species or group of species, most especially if they all come from a common ancestor. Ironically, about the closest relative we have as far as the number of chromosomes in our cells go is the onion! Kinda gets you thinking, huh? Another argument against a working process of macro-evolution is that it did not have 4 billion years to come about, but more like 250 million years. About that long ago there is evidence that a global catastrophe occurred that wiped out all life on earth with the POSSIBLE exception of MAYBE some bacteria in the extreme deep sea or in some oil-field somewhere. By the extremely slow and clumsily random process of natural selection and random mutation there is no way that evolution could be responsible for the diversity we see in modern species on Earth. Yet another argument against macro-evolution as a working natural procees is the origin of biochemicals, or the chemicals required to establish life, on Earth. Biochemicals arose on Earth much in the same way that any other chemicals arose on this planet. Biochemicals are simply the more advanced chemicals required for life. Biochemicals themselves are not indicators of life, but rather the necessary predecessors of it. They began at the moment of the big bang. From the big bang, stars known as “first generation stars” formed. These stars and the surrounding gas clouds were made up of only hydrogen and helium. Obviously no life can form out of these two elements. Second generation stars contain about 1 or 2% heavy elements, which are residual elements from first generation supernovas. Third generation stars are the only stars which contain enough heavy elements (made from the fusing of hydrogen atoms, which are the most basic atoms, with other simple atoms) to form rocky planets. I must add that less than 20% of the stars in the Milky Way are third generation stars, and furthermore only spiral galaxies like the Milky Way are capable of producing a significant number of third generation stars. ust because a star is a third generation star is not enough to form a planet capable of bearing life. The galaxy must be spiral also for the reason that any other galaxy would bombard the delicate chemicals of life with enough radiation to make life impossible, and only 5% of the galaxies in the universe are spiral. Also other stellar qualities must be taken under consideration. The star must be exactly the right size and age, must be burning only so strongly, and any planets must be only so close or far away in order to be candidates for effective biochemical reactions. There are countless requirements that must be fulfilled in order for a planet to house such fragile life-building elements such as carbon, oxygen, phosphorous, and the like, which brings me to the chemicals themselves. The chemicals of life, in the most basic of forms, are carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, phosphorous, and nitrogen (sorry if I missed anything, I haven’t taken a biology class for a whole semester!). By themselves these elements mean very little, they must be mixed and from into just the right molecules in order to even get close to forming the building blocks of life. This is where the requirements placed upon a planet come into play. A planet must be only so big, have just the right atmosphere, be of just the right meteorological state, be comprised of just the proper strata, have just the right orbit, and countless others. In all, the probability of a planet being habitable is 10 to the -33, or a 0.000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of finding such a planet. The maximum number of planets in the universe is only 10 to the 22, so that puts the chances of a proper planet (proper sun, galaxy, place in the universe, etc aside!) at about one in one-billion. If these requirements aren’t exactly right, there is little chance that these chemicals can even begin to take the shape of life-bearing compounds, and there is no chance that life can ever form. In end, the chances of finding just one planet of just the right kind in the ENTIRE universe is about 6X10 to the -10 pretty slim chances. These findings are actually very generous, as there are dozens upon dozens of other parameters that are still being tested, and even more that are overlooked based on their subtlety. Upon finding a planet which contains precisely the right conditions, and the proper mixture of chemicals with which to work, the chemicals have to arrange themselves in just the proper manner. Amino acids have to form out of codons made from simple sugars, and from amino acids must form things such as DNA strands, proteins, and the like. Just to form the chemicals needed to make a protein are astronomically low, and the odds of actually forming even half a protein are approximately 7.4X10 to the -165. Where does all this data lead? It leads to one inescapable conclusion: the origin of life on Earth by any natural process is statistically impossible. As noble Prize winner Francis Crick stated “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.” In something as small as the building of half a protein, I have proven by all statistical means such a process happening at random is impossible. Only a God who knew precisely what He was doing could have created such a finely tuned universe. These astronomical figures apply to almost every aspect of science, from (as you have seen here) molecular biology to cosmology, where leading expert John Gribbon (major contributor to several theories of big bang expansion) said “It appears as though as super-intellect has monkeyed with the laws of physics.” I would suggest that the answer here is fairly clear. God does exist, and the evidences for His design in the universe are blatant. “The heavens are telling of the glory of God, and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands” Psalm 19:1 For these reasons and for myriad others I put my faith in the God of the Bible, and believe that its creation account (though ludicrous when read in the English language-one must go back to the original Hebrew text in order to get a more literal translation, one where “day” is replaced by “period of time”) describes a chain of events that line up remarkably well with observed, recorded, measured, and recreated science. If you look at the Genesis account of creation more figuratively, you can still believe in a universe that is roughly 14 or so billion years old, started via the big bang, and exists under total compliance with the physical laws we have tested and tested so many times over. You can believe in God and still respect what you can see and deduce. My e-mail address is muffindawg@hotmail.com if you have any questions, anything, or I guess you could just post things on this page eh? If anyone else has any questions feel free to e-mail me, challenge me on my beliefs, it can only do me good, and it can only do you good too.
Boris is so much better at the technical stuff than I in this particular arena, but I'm wondering if at least part of this hasn't been established for the debate. But I wanted to make an observation, and also ask a question: Observation: This is true, except in a context juxtaposed to Creationism, especially Biblical Ceationism, one might assert that Evolution is not as arbitrary as the mythic Creationary Force (God). After all, Evolution does not make one blind, and then punish the individual for the heinous crime of being blind. I take issue with your number of planets in the Universe. That is irrelevent, though to the question at hand. Question: What do the magnitude of any numbers mean in relation to a theoretically infinite Universe? I mean, what does it mean that the chance of anything is one over a billion, if that chance has infinite opportunity to actualize itself. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)
Hi dumb college kid, Say can we just call you "the kid" or "kid" for short? Welcome to the hot seat buddy, just hang around and Big Bad Boris will be with you in a minute. But rest assured I'm right behind you (pushing) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! OK OK praying Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hey Boris, BOORRRISSS where are you man! There a new guy/gal on the block called the "KID". Allcare Tony H2o
a common misconception is that the universe is infinite, when in fact it is very much finite in both age and size. This is an undebatable scientific principal. There is no model in cosmology which can realistically provide for a universe that is infinite, or even much older than about 15 billion years. Big bang cosmology is gospel in science, and no one debates it anymore. According to the big bang, the universe MUST have a traceable beginning, making it only so big and only so old. There are numerous physical laws that corroborate this, including one interesting one I just recently learned about called the "singularity principal" or the "singularity theorem". This law states thata universe that is expanding (as ours can be proven to be doing), filled with matter and energy, and obeying any physically acceptable equation of state, must have been singular (or of zero size and zero age) in the past regardless of any lack of symmetry today. IT IS NOT AN INFINITE PLAYING FIELD, evolution in the universe is limited to about 13 billion years, and on earth it is limited to about 4. Actually it is limited even further by the fact that all but a very very few creatures survived a gobal impact a mere 250 million years ago. All the modern evolution we see today is limited to 250 million years and to this tiny planet we live on, there is no infinite playing field.
dumb, You have made a long series of assertions without adequate or any evidential support. If you wish to be believed then provide appropriate evidence otherwise you have effectively said nothing. Please note that while the big bang is a dominant theory, it is still a theory and has not been proved. As for no debate; please see both my topics in the Astronomy Forum that introduce two alternatives to the big bang theory, both imply an infinite model. While these may not be dominant or widely accepted they do indicate a debate still exists.
cris, I can't find thatforum, could you put the address on this meesage board, I would be glad to look over the proposed models. You are right when you say that I make assertions without specific examples. There are so many points I could make that would corroberate my claims but I chose not to list them because it would take a very long time. However, since you brought it up and I have nothing better to do, here we go, tell me that these are not viable parameters: 1. Strong nuclear force constant if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen 2. Weak nuclear force constant if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars 3. Gravitational force constant if larger: stars too hot; they would burn up quickly and unevenly if smaller: stars too cool; nuclear fusion would not ignite; no heavy element production 4. Electromagnetic force constant if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be too unstable for fusion if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding 5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short and uneven stellar burning if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses. hence no heavy element production 6. Ratio of electron to proton mass if larger: insufficient chemical bonding if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding 7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star and planet formation if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation 8. Expansion rate of the universe if larger: no galaxy formation if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation 9. Entropy level of the universe if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation 10. Mass density of the universe if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming 11. Velocity of light if larger: stars would be too luminous if smaller: stars would not be luminous enough 12. Age of the universe if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed 13. Initial uniformity of radiation if smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space 14. Fine structure constant (a number used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses 15. Average distance between galaxies if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation over an adequate time span if smaller: the sun's orbit would be too radically disturbed 16. Galaxy cluster type if too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time 17. Average distance between stars if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized 18. Decay rate of the proton if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life 19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio if larger: insufficient oxygen if smaller: insufficient carbon 20. Ground state energy level for 4He if larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen if smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen 21. Decay rate of 8Be if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars if faster: no element production beyond beryllium, hence no life chemistry possible 22. Mass excess of the neutron over the proton if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life if smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to rapidly collapse into neutron stars or black holes 23. Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons if greater: too much radiation for planets to form if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form 24. Polarity of the water molecule if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life; liquid water would be too inferior a solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up 25. Supernovae eruptions if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation 26.White dwarf binaries if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient fluorine production if too late: fluorine made too late for incorporation in protoplanet 27. Ratio of the mass of exotic matter to ordinary matter if smaller: galaxies would not form if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars can form Not just the universe bears evidence for design. The sun and the earth also reveal a number of parameters necessary to support of life. A sample is listed below. Evidence for the fine-tuning of the galaxy-sun-earth-moon system for life support 1. Galaxy type if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy element build-up for life chemistry if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe and heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun's orbit and ignite too many galactic eruptions if too small: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation 2. Supernovae eruptions if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation if too far: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation 3. White dwarf binaries if too few: insufficient fluorine would be produced for life chemistry to proceed if too many: planetary orbits disrupted by stellar density; life on planet would be exterminated if too soon: not enough heavy elements would he made for efficient fluorine production if too late: fluorine would be made too late for incorporation in protoplanet 4. Parent star distance from center of galaxy if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets if closer: galactic radiation would be too great; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits 5. Number of stars in the planetary system if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life 6. Parent star birth date if more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; stellar system would contain too many heavy elements if less recent: stellar system would not contain enough heavy elements 7. Parent star age if older: luminosity of star would change too quickly if younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly 8. Parent star mass if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would burn too rapidly if less: range of planet distances for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the life planet's rotational period; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen 9. Parent star color if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient 10. Parent star luminosity relative to speciation if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop 11. Surface gravity (escape velocity) if stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water 12. Distance from parent star if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle 13. Inclination of orbit if too great: temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme. 14. Orbital eccentricity if too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme 15. Axial tilt if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great if less: surface temperature differences would be too great 16. Rotation period if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great 17. Rate of change in rotation period if longer: surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained if shorter: surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained 18. Age if too young: planet would rotate too rapidly if too old: planet would rotate too slowly 19. Magnetic field if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe if weaker: ozone shield would be inadequately protected from hard stellar and solar radiation 20. Thickness of crust if thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great 21. Albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface) if greater: runaway glaciation would develop if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop 22. Asteroidal and cometary collision rate if greater: too many species would become extinct if less: crust would be too depleted of materials essential for life 23. Oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly 24. Carbon dioxide level in atmosphere if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis 25. Water vapor level in atmosphere if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land 26. Atmospheric electric discharge rate if greater: too much fire destruction would occur if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere 27. Ozone level in atmosphere if greater: surface temperatures would be too low if less: surface temperatures would be too high; too much uv radiation would be at the surface 28. Oxygen quantity in atmosphere if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would bum up too easily if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe 29. Seismic activity if greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed if less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled to continents through tectonics. 30. Oceans-to-continents ratio if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited if smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited 31. Global distribution of continents (for Earth) if too much in the southern hemisphere: seasonal differences too severe for advanced life 32. Soil mineralization if too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited if too nutrient rich: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited 33. Gravitational interaction with a moon if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe if less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficient; magnetic field would be too weak 34. Jupiter distance if greater: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth if less: Earth's orbit would become unstable 35. Jupiter mass if greater: Earth's orbit would become unstable if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth
DCK - Just a couple quick points - First, almost all of your comparisons are extensions of the first few; Second, most others seem tailored to humanity.. I submit that given different conditions, largely different forms of life will develop. I'll leave the rest to Boris Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! FyreStar
Dumb! It seems like you just described, rather than refuted, the mechanism for evolution. Obviously natural selection and mutation work in tandem to induce constructive changes a species' genome. Tell that to any plant biologist, and they will be quite amused. Most 'traditional' plant breeding (ie. prior to transgenetic modifications) involves either the hybridization of different plants or the chromosome mutation of a single plant. Hybrid plants are incredibly important (most, if not all, wheat is a hybrid). The latter method of chromosome mutation involves increasing the # of chromosome copies per cell (ie. rather than having 2 sets, the resultant plant will have 4 or 6, or even 8). This is an effective method to increase plant productivity. Did all the fish die? What about the reptiles? Mammals? What are they teaching you at your college?? Well, sir. You should be publishing your evidence for the benefit of the scientific community, because absolutely no one else has any evidence to make assertions about how probable planetary formation is in this universe!! Are you making up numbers? It has been demonstrated that using nothing more than basic organic precursor chemicals found throughout the universe and very simple energetic conditions, one can create amino acids. This is in a lab, with very small volumes of chemicals used, and over a short time frame. Any braindead monkey with a protocol could do it. Look. If you're actually at college, I strongly urge you to take a course in something scientific (genetics, perhaps). Don't just pretend to think you understand what is going on, because you clearly don't. If nothing else, you'll at least be able to eliminate some of your more worthless arguments (if only to replace them with other not-as-worthless ones). [This message has been edited by DaveW (edited April 06, 2000).]
Dave W, here are some references for the statements I have made, including the numbers which I did not make up. REFERENCES: 1.Roche, George, A World Without Heroes. (Hillsdale, MI: Hillsdale college Press, 1987), p.120. 2.Kant, Immanuel, "Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens," in Theories of the Universe. edited by Milton K. Munitz. (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1957), p.240. 3.Harrison, E. R., "The dark night-sky riddle: a 'paradox' that resisted solution," in Science, 226. (1984), pp.941-945 4.Jaki, Stanley L., The Paradox of Olbers' Paradox. (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), pp.72-143. 5.North, J. D., The Measure of the Universe: A History of Modern Cosmology. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), pp. 16-18. 6.Eisberg, Robert M., Fundamentals of Modern Physics. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1961), pp.7-9. 7.Einstein, Albert, "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper," in Annalen der Physik, 17. (1905), pp.891-921. The English translation is in The Principle of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, and H. Weyl with notes by A. Sommerfeld and translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffrey (London: Methuen and Co., 1923), pp.35-65. 8.Einstein, Albert, "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?" in Annalen der Physik, 18. (1905), pp. 639-644. The English translation is in The Principle of Relativity by H. A. Lorenta, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, and H. Weyl with notes by A. Sommerfeld and translated by W. Penett and G. Jeffrey (London: Methuen and Co., 1923), pp. 67-71. 9.Eisberg, Robert Martin, Modern Physics. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1991), pp.30-35. 10.Ibid., pp.37-38, 75-76, 580-592 11.Jackson, John D., Classical Electrodynamics. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962), pp. 352-369. 12.Lamoreaux, S. K., Jacobs, J. P., Heckel, B. R., Raab, F. J., and Forston, E. N., "New Limits on Spatial Anisotropy from Optically Pumped 201Hg and 199Hg," in Physical Review Letters, 57, (1986), pp.3125-3128. 13.Einstein, Albert, "Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation," in Sitzungsherichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschafen. (1915), Nov.25, pp. 844-847. (The following reference includes this reference.) 14.Einstein, Albert, "Die Grundlage der ailgemeinen Relativititätheon.e," in Annalen der Physik, 49. (1916), pp.769-822. The English translation is in The Principle of Relativity by H. A. Lorenta, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, and H. Weyl with notes by A. Sommerfeld and translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffrey (London: Methuen and Co., 1923), pp.109-164. 15.Hubble, Edwin, "A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity Among Extra-Galactic Nebulae," in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 15. (1929), pp.168-173. 16.Douglas, A. Vibert, "Forty Minutes With Einstein," in Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 50. (1956), p.100. 17.Barnett, Lincoln, The Universe and Dr. Einstein. (New York: William Sloane Associates, 1948), p. 106. 18.Eddington, Arthur S., "On the Instability of Einstein's Spherical World," in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 90. (1930), p. 672. 19.Eddington, Arthur S., "The End of the World: from the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics," in Nature, 127. (1931), p. 450. 20.Eddington, Arthur S., "On the Instability of Einstein's Spherical World," in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 90. (1930), p.668678. 21.Petrosian, Vahé, "confrontation of Lemaître Models and the cosmological Constant with Observations," in Proceedings of the I. A. U. Symposium No.63: Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data. edited by M. S. Longair. (Dordrecht-Holland, Boston-U.S. A. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Reidel Publishing, 1974), pp. 31-46. 22.McCcarthy, P. J., Dickinson, M., Filippenko, A. V., Spinrad, H., and van Breugel, W. J. M., "Serendipitous Discovery of a Redshift 4.4 QSO," in Astrophysical Journal Letters, 328. (1988), pp. L29-L33. 23.Warren, S. J., Hewett, P. C., Osmer, P.S., Irwin, M. J., "Quasars of Redshift a = 4.43 and a = 4.07 in the South Galactic Pole Field," in Nature, 330. (1987), pp. 453-455. 24.Schneider, Donald P., Schmidt, Maarten, and Gunn, James E., "PC 1158+4635: An Optically Selected Quasar with a Redshift of 4.73," in Astronomical Journal, 98. (1989), pp.1951-1958. 25.Dunlop, J. S., Downes, A. J. B., Peacock, J. A., Savage, A., Lilly, S. J., Watson, F. G., and Longair, M. G., "Quasar with a = 3.71 and Limits on the Number of More Distant Objects," in Nature, 319. (1986), pp. 564-567. 26.Peterson, B. A., Savage, A., Jauncey, D. L., and Wright, A. E., "PKS 2000-330: A Quasi-Stellar Radio Source with a Redshift of 3.78," in Astrophysical Journal Letters, 260. (1982), pp. L27-L29. 27.Brecher, Kenneth and Silk, Joseph, "Lemaître Universe, Galaxy Formation and Observations," in Astrophysical Journal, 158. (1969), pp. 91-102. 28.Bondi, H. and Gold, T., "The Steady-State Theory of the Expanding Universe," in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 108. (1948), pp.252-270. 29.Hoyle, Fred, "A New Model for the Expanding Universe," in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 108. (1948), pp. 372-382. 30.Bondi, Herman, Cosmology, second edition. (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1960), p. 140. 31.Hoyle, Fred, "A New Model for the Expanding Universe," in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 108. (1948), p.372. 32.Hoyle, Fred, The Nature of the Universe, second edition. (Oxford, U. K.: Basil Blackwell, 1952), p.111. 33.Hoyle, Fred, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," in Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20. (1982), p.3. 34.Jeans, Sir James H., Astronomy and Cosmogony, second edition. (Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge at the University Press, 1929), pp. 421-422. 35.Hamilton, Donald, "The Spectral Evolution of Galaxies. I. An Observational Approach," in Astrophysical Journal 297.(1985), pp. 371-389. 36.Gribbin, John, "Oscillating Universe Bounces Back," in Nature, 259. (1976), pp.15-16. 37.Dicke, R. H. Peebles, P. J. E., Roll, P. G., and Wilkinson, D. T., "Cosmic Black-Body Radiation," in Astrophysical Journal Letters, 142. (1965),pp.415. 38.Gott III, Richard J., Gunn, James E., Schramm, David N., and Tinsley, Beatrice M., "An Unbound Universe?" in Astrophysical Journal 194. (1974), pp.543-553. 39.Spinrad, Hyron and Djorgovski, S., "The Status of the Hubble Diagram in 1986," in Observational Cosmology, Proceedings of the 124th Symposium of the International Astronomical Union, held in Bejing, China, Aug. 25-30, 1986 (ed.: Hewitt, A., Burbidge, G., and Pang, L. Z.), (Dordrecht-Boston: D. Reidel, 1987), pp.129-141. 40.Steinhardt, Paul J., "Inflation and the W -Problem," in Nature, 345. (1990), pp.47-49. 41.Peebles, P. J. E., "The Mean Mass Density of the Universe," in Nature, 321. (1986), pp.27-32. 42.Hamilton, Donald, "The Spectral Evolution of Galaxies. I. An Observational Approach," in Astrophysical Journal 297. (1985), pp.371-389. 43.Sandage, Allan and Tammann, G A.,. "The Dynamical Parameters of the Universe: H0, q0, W 0, L , and K," in Large-Scale Structure of the Universe, Cosmology, and Fundamental Physics, Proceedings of the First ESO-CERN Symposium, CERN, Geneva, 21-25 Nov., 1983, edited by G. Setti and L. van Hove. (Geneva: CERN, 1984), pp. 127-149. 44.Yang, J., Turner, M. S., Steigman, C., Schramm, D. N., and Olive, K. A., "Primordial Nucleosynthesis: a critical comparison of theory and observation," in Astrophysical Journal 281. (1984), pp.493-511. 45.Uson, Juan M. and Wilkinson, David T., "Improved Limits on Small-Scale Anistropy in Cosmic Microwave Background," in Nature, 312. (1984), pp.427-429. 46.Ellis, C. F. R., "Does Inflation Necessarily Imply W = 1?" in Classical and Quantum Gravity, 5. (1988), pp.891-901. 47.Guth, Alan H. and Sher, Marc, "The Impossibility of a Bouncing Universe, in Nature, 302. (1983), pp.505-507. 48.Bludman, Sidney A., "Thermodynamics and the End of a Closed Universe," in Nature, 308. (1984), pp.319-322. 49.Novikov, I. D. and Zel'dovich, Ya. B., "Physical Processes Near Cosmological Singularities," in Annual Review Of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 11. (1973), pp.401. 50.Sikkema, Arnold E. and Israel, Werner, "Black-hole Mergers and Mass Inflation in a Bouncing Universe," in Nature, 349. (1991), pp. 45A7. 51.Linde, Andre, "Self-Reproducing Universe," lecture given at the Centennial Symposium on Large Scale Structure, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California (September 27,1991). 52.Hawking. Stephen W. and Ellis, George F. R., "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," in Astrophysical Journal 152. (1968), pp. 25-36. 53.Hawking, Stephen and Penyose, Roger, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 314. (1970), pp.529-548. 54.Vessot, R. F. C., Levine, M. W., Mattison, B. M., Blomberg, E. L., Hoffman, T. B., Nystrom, G. U., and Farrel, B. F., "Test of Relativistic Gravitation with a Space-Borne Hydrogen Maser," in Physical Review Letters, 45. (1980), pp. 2081-2084. 55.Weinberg, Steven, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1972), p.198. 56.Van Biesbroeck, G., "The Relativity Shift at the 1952 February 25 Eclipse of the Sun," in Astronomical Journal 58. (1953), pp.87-88. 57.Counselman III, C. C., Kent, S. M., Knight, C. A., Shapiro, I.I., Clark, T. A., Hinteregger, H. F., Rogers, A. B. E., and Whitney, A. R., "Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves Measured by Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry," in Physical Review Letters, 33. (1974), pp.1621-1623. 58.Shapiro, I.I., Pettengill, G. H., Ash, M. E., Ingalls, R. P., Campbell, D. B., and Dyce, R. B., "Mercury's Perihelion Advance: Determination by Radar," in Physical Review Letters, 28. (1972), pp.1594-1597. 59.Taylor, J. H., Fowler, L. A., and McCulloch, P. M., "Measurements of General Relativistic Effects in the Binary Pulsar PSR 1913+16," in Nature, 277. (1979), pp. 437-440. 60.Taylor, J. H., "Gravitational Radiation and the Binary Pulsar," in Proceedings of the Second Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, Part A. edited by Retno Ruffini. (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing, 1982), pp. 15-19. 61.Shapiro, Irwin I., Counselman III, Charles C., and King, Robert W., "Verification of the Principle of Equivalence for Massive Bodies," in Physical Review Letters, 36. (1976), pp.555-558. 62.Pound, R. V. and Snider, J. L., "Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance," in Physical Review Letters, 13. (1964), pp. 539-540. 63.Reasenberg, R. D., Shapiro, I. I., MacNeil, P. E., Goldstein, R. B., Breidenthal, J. C., Brenkle, J. P., Cain, D. L., Kaufman, T. M., Komarek, T. A., and Zygielbaum, A. I., "Viking Relativity Experiment: Verification of Signal Retardation by Solar Gravity," in Astrophysical Journal Letters, 234. (1979), pp.219-221. 64.Vessot, R. F. C., Levine, M. W., Mattison, B. M., Blomberg, E. L., Hoffman, T. B., Nystrom, G. U., and Farrel, B. F., "Test of Relativistic Gravitation with a Space-Borne Hydrogen Maser," in Physical Review Letters, 45. (1980), pp. 2081-2084. 65.Porcas, R. W., Booth, R. S., Browne, I. W. A., Walsh, D., and Wilkinson, P. N., "VLBI Observations of the Double QSO 0957+561 A, B," in Nature, 282. (1979), pp. 384-386. 66.Weymann, R. J., Latham, D., Angel, J. R. P., Green, R. F., Liebert, J. W., Tumshek, D. A., Tumshek, D. E., and Tyson, J. A., "The Triple QSO PG 1115+08: Another Probable Gravitational Lens," in Nature, 285. (1980), pp. 641-643. 67.Henry, J. Patrick and Heasley, J. N., "High-Resolution Imaging from Mauna Kea: the Triple Quasar in 0.3 arc 5 Seeing," in Nature, 321. (1986), pp.139-142. 68.Langston, G. I., Conner, S. R., Lehar, J., Burke, B. F., and Weiler, K. W., "Galaxy Mass Deduced from the Structure of Einstein Ring MG1 654+1346," in Nature, 344. (1990), pp. 43-45. 69.Emerson, Allen, "A Disorienting View of God's Creation," in Christianity Today, February 1,1985, p.19. 70.Davies, Paul, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983), pp. 25-43, specifically pp.38-39. 71.II Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2, The Holy Bible. 72.Davies, Paul, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984), p. 243. 73.Davies, Paul, The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability to Order the Universe. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988), p. 141. 74.Ibid., p.203. 75.Gott, J. Richard, Ill., "Creation of Open Universes from de Sitter Space," in Nature, 295 (1982), p. 306. 76.Pagels, Heinz R., Perfect Symmetry: The Search for the Beginning of Time. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985), p. 244. 77.Tryon, Edward P., "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation," in Nature, 246. (1973), pp. 396-397. 78.Atkatz, David and Pagels, Heinz., "Origin of the Universe as a Quantum Tunneling Event," in Physical Review D, 25. (1982), pp.2065-2073. 79.Vilenkin, Alexander, "Creation of Universes from Nothing," in Physical Letters B, 117. (1982), pp. 25-28. 80.Zel'dovich, Yakob B. and Grishchuk, L. P., "Structure and Future of the 'New' Universe," in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 207. (1984), pp. 23P-28P. 81.Vilenkiln, Alexander, "Birth of Inflationary Universes," in Physical Review D, 27. (1983), pp. 2848-2855. 82.Vilenitin, Mexander, "Quantum Creation of Universes," in Physical Review D, 30. (1984), pp. 509-511. 83.Hartie, James B. and Hawking Steven W., "Wave Function of the Universe," in Physical Review D, 28. (1983), pp. 2960-2975. 84.Hawking, Steven W., "The Quantum State of the Universe," in Nuclear Physics B, 239. (1984), pp. 257-276. 85.Pagels, Heinz R., p. 347. 86.Tipler, Frank, "The Mind of God," in The Times [of London] Higher Education Supplement, 14.10.88, p.23. 87.Hawking, Stephen W., A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. (New York: Bantam Books, (1988), p.139. 88.II Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2, The Holy Bible, New International Version. 89.Hawking, Stephen W., p. 141. 90.Adler, Jerry, Lubenow, Gerald C., and Malone, Maggie, "Reading God's Mind," in Newsweek, June 13. (1988), p.59. 91.Jaki, Stanley L., Cosmos and Creator. (Edinburgh, U. K.: Scottish Academic Press, 1980), pp. 49-54. 92.Wheeler, John Archibald, "Bohr, Einstein, and the Strange Lesson of the Quantum," in Mind in Nature, edited by Richard Q. Elvee (New York: Harper and Row, 1981), p.18. 93.Greenstein, George, The Symbiotic Universe. (New York: William Morrow, 1988), p.223. 94.Herbert, Nick, Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics: An Excursion into Metaphysics and the Meaning of Reality (New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1987), pp. 16-29. 95.Jaki, Stanley L., Cosmos and Creator (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1980), pp. 96-98. 96.Trefil, James S., The Moment of Creation (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1983), pp. 91-101. 97.Barrow, John D. and Tipler, Frank J., The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986). 98.Ibid., p.677 99.Ibid., pp.677, 682. 100.Gardner, Martin, "WAP, SAP, PAP, and FAP." in The New York Review of Books, Vol.23, May 8, 1986, No.8 (1986), pp. 22-25. 101.Ross, Hugh, The Fingerprint of God, second edition. (Orange, CA: Promise Publishing, 1991), pp.120-128. 102.Barrow, John D. and Tipler, Frank J., The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. (New York: Oxford University Press (1986), pp.123-457. 103.Carr, Bernard J. and Rees, Martin J., "The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World," in Nature,278. (1979), Pp.605-612. 104.Templeton, John M., "God Reveals Himself in the Astronomical and in the Infinitesimal," in Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, December 1984. (1984), pp. 194-200. 105.Neidhardt, Jim W., "The Anthropic Principle: A Religious Response," in Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, December 1984. (1984), pp.20l-207. 106.Carter, Brandon, "Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology," in Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union Symposium No.63: Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data. edited by M. S. Longair. (Dordrecht-Holland, Boston, U.S. A.: D. Reidel, 1974), pp.29l-298. 107.Barrow, John D., "The Lore of Large Numbers: Some Historical Background to the Anthropic Principle," in Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 22. (1981), pp. 404-420. 108.Lightman, Alan., "To the Dizzy Edge," in Science 82, October. (1982), pp. 24-25. 109.O'Toole, Thomas, "Will the Universe Die by Fire or Ice?" in Science 81, April. (1981), pp. 71-72. 110.Hoyle, Fred, Galaxies, Nuclei, and Quasars. (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), pp. 147-150. 111.Ross, Hugh., p. 122. 112.Barrow, John D. and Tipler, Prank J., pp. 318-327, 354-359 113.Guth, A. H., "Inflationary Universe: a possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems," in Physical Review D, 23. (1981), p. 348. 114.Hoyle, Fred, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," in Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20. (1982), p.16. 115.Davies, Paul, God and the New Physics. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983), pp. viii, 3-42, 142-143. 116.Davies, Paul, Superforce. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243. 117.Davies, Paul, The Cosmic Blueprint. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988), p.203. 118.Greenstein, George, The Symbiotic Universe. (New York: William Morrow, 1988), p.27. 119.Shklovskii, I.S. and Sagan, Carl, Intelligent Life in the Universe. (San Francisco: Holden-Day, 1966), pp.343-350. 120.Ibid., p.413. 121.Rood, Robert T. and Trefil, James S., Are We Alone? The Possibility of Extraterrestrial Civilizations. (New York: Scribner's Sons, 1983). 122.Barrow, John D. and Tipler, Frank J., pp. 510-575. 123.Anderson, Don L., "The Earth as a Planet: Paradigms and Paradoxes," in Science, 223. (1984), pp.347-355. 124.Campbell, I. H. and Taylor, S. R., "No Water, No Granite—No Oceans, No Continents," in Geophysical Research Letters, 10. (1983), pp.1061-1064. 125.Carter, Brandon, "The Anthropic Principle and Its Implications for Biological Evolution," in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 310. (1983), pp.352-363. 126.Hammond, Allen H .,"The Uniqueness of the Earth's Climate," in Science, 187 (1975), p. 245. 127.Toon, Owen B. and Olson, Steve, "The Warm Earth," in Science 85, October. (1985), pp.50-57. 128.Gale, George, "The Anthropic Principle," in Scientific American, 245, No.6. (1981), pp.154-171. 129.Ross, Hugh, Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective. (Pasadena, California: Reasons to Believe, 1983), pp. 6-7. 130.Cottrell, Ron, The Remarkable Spaceship Earth. (Denver, Colorado: Accent Books, 1982). 131.Ter Harr, D., "On the Origin of the Solar System," in Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 5. (1967), pp. 267-278. 132.Greenstein, George., pp.68-97. 133.Templeton, John M., "God Reveals Himself in the Astronomical and in the Infinitesimal," in Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, December 1984. (1984), pp.196-198. 134.Hart, Michael H., "The Evolution of the Atmosphere of the Earth," in Icarus, 33. (1978), pp.23-39. 135.Hart, Michael H., "Habitable Zones about Main Sequence Stars," in Icarus, 37 (1979), pp.351-357. 136.Owen, Tobias, Cess, Robert D., and Ramanathan, V., "Enhanced C02 Greenhouse to Compensate for Reduced Solar Luminosity on Early Earth," in Nature, 277. (1979), pp.640-641. 137.Ward, William R., "Comments on the Long-Term Stability of the Earth's Obliquity," in Icarus, 50. (1982), pp. 444-448. 138.Gribbin, John, "The Origin of Life: Earth's Lucky Break," in Science Digest, May 1983. (1983), pp.36402. 139.Davies, R. E. and Koch, R. H., Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 334B. (1991), pp.391-403. 140.Tipler, Frank J., reviewing "The Search for Extraterrestrial Life: Recent Developments," in Physics Today, 40, December 1987, p.92. 141.Craig, William Lane, "Barrow and Tipler on the Anthropic Principle vs. Divine Design," in British Journal of Philosophy and Science, 38. (1988), p.392. look at any of these books and you will be able to find information supporting my claims. I think that you should exercise a more adavcend level of maturity when dealing with people who you think are wrong. Hurling insults and attacking personal aspects of people's lives (such as their intelligence, their school, what-have-you) is not a proffesional attitude to be taking. I would have expected a bit better, especially out of an administrator or facilitator of this site.
to dave w and those who would like to hear an argument against human evolution (for no better reason than to refute it perhaps!) I would suggest you go here: http://reasons.org/resources/apologetics/humanevolution.html
<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif"> Well, I was suckered into this thread and now I feel like I owe it a response. Since y'all kept me up so late, here it is: Boris, once again you stand on a strong foundation of logic and science. However, in this thread, you are battling faith, a system of reasoning which is not based on a tactile human experience. My assumption is that the Bibles were written under the same influence--faith. So, even though a challenge was submitted, your arguments will never be received in the same light in which they were offered. And yes, logic and science are a form of religion--faith in mans perception of the universe by means of experiment and theory. All of it comes from the same place. PS: Are you sporting a pair of horns on your crown?.<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif"> Okay, I'm done with this because I see no end to it, and it's all very large. ------------------ It's all very large. [This message has been edited by Bowser (edited April 06, 2000).]
Dumb, Have you read all those books and papers? If so, good for you. If not, I think we'd all rather hear YOUR thoughts and arguments. If anyone tells you they know what the probability of life arising in the universe is, they are a liar.
Hey DCK, "The Kid" Numbers, references, quotes, Aghhhhh... Ya makin my head hurt Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! This is a new thing here most people just throw up their thoughts and then try and stand against the onslaught. Good to see some "factual" backing for a persons stance and now that I got a list of the books all I need is a spare 20 of so years. Ten to read em, and ten more to try and understand em. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Man alive imagine how long it would take if I was reaaaallllly dumb (or blonde) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hey while we are talking, no strike that I'm the one doing all the talking, so while I'm yabbering on where exactly do you stand on the issue of faith, salvation, Jesus etc. You said about believing in a creator or God so feel free to fill us in a bit....K? Allcare Tony H2o
dumb, Some friendly help: Try using this technique - I suggest that “A” is true because of “B” and “C”. Where “A” is the concept you wish to discuss. And where “B” and “C”, are proven indisputable statements of fact. The relationship between “A” and “B, C” should be clear and obvious. Strictly only “B” is needed as support but including additional proofs add weight and credibility to your argument. If the relationships are judged logically valid then you will have established useful knowledge. Using this technique will show thought and intelligence and allows for a debate using reasoned arguments. So far you have swung between two extremes, not enough evidence, and far too much. In the first place you won’t be believed and in the second condition no one will have the time. Either way your potentially valuable point of view will be lost and you will have wasted your time. For the moment your credibility is damaged and you will need to work harder now to recover. Moderate your technique and keep your statements as simple as possible, and try again. Concerning the Astronomy Forum: It is another forum on this Bulletin Board. At the top of your browser page you should see a reference to the ExoScience Message Board, click on this and you should then see a list of all the available forums. Choose the general Astronomy forum. [This message has been edited by Cris (edited April 06, 2000).]
Tony h2o, I am christian. I find that, if I could choose to live with either strictly faith or strictly knowledge of science that I would choose faith based on several things. First, faith is more applicable to living life. An ounce of faith can make up for a boat-load of knowledge in this world. Second, I find that as I grow closer to my God, the more questions I ask, the more I require He prove Himself to me, the more I start to elevate myself. There are questions that I believe God will leave unanswered to some, just based on the fact that, if God was in the buisiness of always proving Himself to us all the time, who would really be the God then? We would, because it would be Him serving us at that point. In that, I am satisfied to keep learning about God's universe as long as my faith is not an issue in question, as I would rather enter heaven with a little faith than not be permitted based on a slough of "knowledge" (which as we know is not always correct). This does NOT mean that I choose to run around with blinders on to the truth. Truth is composed of facts and knowledge, but in a more profound sense. We aren't excused to be idiots based upon our faith, and I (sometimes being most in need of knowledge) choose not to be one. I think that, by learning about the universe, you can become a good steward of God's creation. That is indeed why God made the universe, so that we could stand in awe of Him the more we learn about His creation. I am sure there are some who will dissagree here, but that's alright. I'll try to get back to as many as I can [This message has been edited by dumb college kid (edited April 06, 2000).]
