Atheists - Doubt Your Doubts

[nl]

http://astrobiology.berkeley.edu/PDFs_articles/Glavin_EPSL2001.pdf

The microbes were fossilized, but still.

There is no mention of moss in this article and bacteria or microbes from Mars, fossilized or not, are unconfirmed speculation.

You can wish for there to be life on Mars.

Belief in the power of wishing seems like a religious activity to me as does the many forms of superstition.

There is better evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ than for life on Mars. You can believe that.

 

[ColinCat]

There is no mention of moss in this article and bacteria or microbes from Mars, fossilized or not, are unconfirmed speculation.

You can wish for there to be life on Mars.

Belief in the power of wishing seems like a religious activity to me as does the many forms of superstition.

There is better evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ than for life on Mars. You can believe that.

Evidence independent of the bible?

 

[Human]

Color of water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

?

There were are, I stand corrected. Small quantities are clear, while larger quantities maintain a weak blue hue, and water below sky maintains a deeper blue colour.

Still, I don't see how the colour of water has any bearing whatsoever on the probability of life in Europa's oceans.

 

[Human]

There is no mention of moss in this article and bacteria or microbes from Mars, fossilized or not, are unconfirmed speculation.

You can wish for there to be life on Mars.

Belief in the power of wishing seems like a religious activity to me as does the many forms of superstition.

There is better evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ than for life on Mars. You can believe that.

There are fossilized microbes found in a Martian meteorite (re-read the article). This proves that at some point, life did exist on Mars. The argument is over whether it currently does or not.

The microbes found, at the time, were considered too small to be genuine samples of microbial life, however we now know that on Earth there exist microbes 100 times smaller. Seems there were microbes on mars. Since then, lots of Martian meteorites have contained what look uncannily like fossilized microbes. Obviously, we can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that microbes is what they are, since we don't know if Martian microbes would be similar to Earth's, but microbes fossilized on Earth tend to look very similar, so it would make sense, seeing as Mars and Earth are neighbouring planets.

 

[Red_Tory]

There were are, I stand corrected. Small quantities are clear, while larger quantities maintain a weak blue hue, and water below sky maintains a deeper blue colour.

1. Water is clear in small quantities, but blue in large quantities;
2. You can't explain that
Therefore, God exists.

Checkmate, silly atheists.

 

[nl]

There are fossilized microbes found in a Martian meteorite (re-read the article). This proves that at some point, life did exist on Mars. The argument is over whether it currently does or not.

The microbes found, at the time, were considered too small to be genuine samples of microbial life, however we now know that on Earth there exist microbes 100 times smaller. Seems there were microbes on mars. Since then, lots of Martian meteorites have contained what look uncannily like fossilized microbes. Obviously, we can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that microbes is what they are, since we don't know if Martian microbes would be similar to Earth's, but microbes fossilized on Earth tend to look very similar, so it would make sense, seeing as Mars and Earth are neighbouring planets.

As you state in one place, there is reasonable doubt of fossilized Martian microbes.

Linked below is an article on fossilized Martian microbes. I am sure that the AMNH would love to report on real Martian microbes, fossilized or otherwise, but the evidence isn't there so they can't confirm that.

Link: http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/cs_microbes.html

 

[Josefnospam]

Those who don't belief in God Will. And for them it will be too late. Now is the day of Salvation and there will be many who do not believe. All is as it should be. God has a people and knows who they are and they know him. May he Bless you as only he can do.

 

[Human]

1. Water is clear in small quantities, but blue in large quantities;
2. You can't explain that
Therefore, God exists.

Checkmate, silly atheists.

Not really, no. Water is blue in larger quantities because of the way it refracts light.

 

[Cycel]

1. Water is clear in small quantities, but blue in large quantities;
2. You can't explain that
Therefore, God exists.

Checkmate, silly atheists.

Not really, no. Water is blue in larger quantities because of the way it refracts light.

I've got a feeling he is pulling your leg.

 

[nl]

Your point, I think, was to argue the improbability of any other water worlds like Earth. Water, however, is abundant in the solar system, and according to all our evidence is equally abundant throughout the galaxy. Whereas once we had no evidence that other worlds existed we have now, with the development of new technologies in the last two decades, discovered over 1,800 worlds. Odds are that planets the size of Earth are common (astronomers argue that statistically there are probably billions of them in our galaxy). Some of those are likely, simply by chance alone, to be in orbits around stars that permit surface oceans. That much, Nl, we should be able to agree upon.

The "Goldilocks zone" is actually very small and sensitive. If temperatures get cold, then water freezes. If temperatures warm up too much, then water vaporizes or boils. If gravity, winds, atmospheric composition change but a little, then viability of life changes significantly.

Right now, the northern hemisphere of earth has winter while the southern hemisphere has summer. The difference is the tilt of the earth in the two hemispheres relative to the position of the sun. The whole situation is very delicate, sensitive and balanced. We should not assume that viability of carbon-based life happens so easily.

 

[Human]

The "Goldilocks zone" is actually very small and sensitive. If temperatures get cold, then water freezes. If temperatures warm up too much, then water vaporizes or boils. If gravity, winds, atmospheric composition change but a little, then viability of life changes significantly.

Right now, the northern hemisphere of earth has winter while the southern hemisphere has summer. The difference is the tilt of the earth in the two hemispheres relative to the position of the sun. The whole situation is very delicate, sensitive and balanced. We should not assume that viability of carbon-based life happens so easily.

There's also no reason to assume carbon based life is the only form of life that exists. In any case, in a universe as large as ours, the laws of probability would lead us to conclude that there is more chance of there being alien life than there not being alien life. It's a relatively simple thing to conclude. Infinite possibility (a la infinite universe) means infinitely variant occurences. As for calculating the probability of carbon based life having evolved on Earth; the evidence tells us that it did in fact happen on Earth. The probability of such life arising without a creator God cannot however be calculated; we can not observe the Christian creator God in order to make any calculations of probability. Calculating the probability of life arising on Earth by natural means is also meaningless; there are incalculable ways in which energy can interact with energy to form complex energetic ''structures''.

 

[nl]

There's also no reason to assume carbon based life is the only form of life that exists. In any case, in a universe as large as ours, the laws of probability would lead us to conclude that there is more chance of there being alien life than there not being alien life. It's a relatively simple thing to conclude. Infinite possibility (a la infinite universe) means infinitely variant occurences. As for calculating the probability of carbon based life having evolved on Earth; the evidence tells us that it did in fact happen on Earth. The probability of such life arising without a creator God cannot however be calculated; we can not observe the Christian creator God in order to make any calculations of probability. Calculating the probability of life arising on Earth by natural means is also meaningless; there are incalculable ways in which energy can interact with energy to form complex energetic ''structures''.

Carbon is an element link no other. Carbon is abundant and bonds easily in combination with other elements to create complex molecules.

"Carbon forms the key component for all known naturally occurring life on Earth. Complex molecules are made up of carbon bonded with other elements, especially oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, and carbon is able to bond with all of these because of its four valence electrons. Carbon is abundant on earth. It is also lightweight and relatively small in size, making it easier for enzymes to manipulate carbon molecules. It is often assumed in astrobiology that if life exists somewhere else in the universe, it will also be carbon based."

Source: Carbon-based life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Silicon is common but its properties are very different.

 

[nl]

Shown below is a short video (6:26) on the finely-tuned universe.

[video=youtube_share;UpIiIaC4kRA]http://youtu.be/UpIiIaC4kRA[/video]

The names of the constants that scroll in the video include:

Constants

• Speed of Light
• Gravitational Constant
• Planck’s constant
• Planck Mass-Energy
• Mass of Electron, Proton, Neutron
• Mass of Up, Down, Strange Quark
• Ratio of Electron to Proton Mass
• Gravitational Coupling Constant
• Cosmological Constant
• Hubble Constant
• Higgs Vacuum Expectation Value

Each constant is "finely-tuned" within a precise range to give us the universe as we observe it. If the values of the variables were only slightly different, then matter and energy as we have known them would be different.

 

[JimmieD]

The names of the constants that scroll in the video include:...

Each constant is "finely-tuned" within a precise range to give us the universe as we observe it. If the values of the variables were only slightly different, then matter and energy as we have known them would be different.

(1) Are you calling them constants or variables? You use both terms even though they mean very different things.

(2) Why think these values could have been any different than what they are? What values are they likely/unlikely to take?

 

[nl]

Yes, thank you for the helpful response. The values of the "variables" have been shown to be a constant so far.

Some values such as the speed of light are reported as constant but black holes may provide an exception where light is reduced to an effective speed of zero or even a negative value.

Nothing in known physics indicates that the values of these constants needed to set necessarily at the values at which they have been observed.

 

[JimmieD]

Yes, thank you for the helpful response. The values of the "variables" have been shown to be a constant so far.

I think I get what you're trying to say. You believe they are variables, but have only ever been observed to have one particular value.

Nothing in known physics indicates that the values of these constants needed to set necessarily at the values at which they have been observed.

Nothing in known physics indicates that the values of these could be anything different than the values at which they have been observed either. Nothing in known physics indicates they are "variables."

I suppose we could imagine a universe where something were different. Maybe if we lived in another universe, or maybe we could imagine perhaps if we "rewound the tape" and started this universe over, these values could have been something different than what we observe now. Ok, but as Han Solo said, "I don't know, I can imagine quite a bit." Because to imagine these other possibilities we must always couch some assumptions into our imagined scenario, any of which could alter your argument into being essentially useless.

Your argument relies on the values of these 'variables' to be able to take on any old value. To say this, it seems you make an implicit assumption that the distribution of possible values is uniform across the range of real numbers from negative infinity to infinity. But given this assumption, the values that we observe are not particularly interesting - they are just as likely as any other. There is nothing abnormal, unusual, or improbable about the values we observe in our universe.

 

[Human]

I think I get what you're trying to say. You believe they are variables, but have only ever been observed to have one particular value.



Nothing in known physics indicates that the values of these could be anything different than the values at which they have been observed either. Nothing in known physics indicates they are "variables."

I suppose we could imagine a universe where something were different. Maybe if we lived in another universe, or maybe we could imagine perhaps if we "rewound the tape" and started this universe over, these values could have been something different than what we observe now. Ok, but as Han Solo said, "I don't know, I can imagine quite a bit." Because to imagine these other possibilities we must always couch some assumptions into our imagined scenario, any of which could alter your argument into being essentially useless.

Your argument relies on the values of these 'variables' to be able to take on any old value. To say this, it seems you make an implicit assumption that the distribution of possible values is uniform across the range of real numbers from negative infinity to infinity. But given this assumption, the values that we observe are not particularly interesting - they are just as likely as any other. There is nothing abnormal, unusual, or improbable about the values we observe in our universe.

Which is a paticularly illustrative way of putting the anthropic principle; if weren't what it is, it would be something other than that.

 

[JimmieD]

Shown below is a short video (6:26) on the finely-tuned universe.

[video=youtube_share;UpIiIaC4kRA]http://youtu.be/UpIiIaC4kRA[/video]

I disagree with the video on the plausibility of chance. This point relies on an assumption about the distribution of possible values for the physical "constants." It requires that distribution to be uniform across some range of real numbers. Besides not being able to actually know this distribution of possible values in the first place (due to only observing this universe), it doesn't mean that the physical constants of interest in our universe are improbable - at least, it's not more improbable than any other alternative.

If the distribution of possible values for C is uniform, then the probability of observing any value is equal to the probability of observing any other value. For n possible values, the probability is:

P(C[SUB]1 [/SUB]= X) = 1/n

What the video is trying to say is that, assuming the values of interest are independent, the probability of the intersection of all of those values is a small number:

Where n is the number of possible values for a physical constant C,

P(C[SUB]1[/SUB]C[SUB]2[/SUB]C[SUB]3...[/SUB]C[SUB]i[/SUB]) = 1.......
.......................n[SUB]1[/SUB]n[SUB]2[/SUB]n[SUB]3[/SUB]...n[SUB]i[/SUB]

Given the possible values the video is assuming, then the probability of the intersection of all the constants of interest is indeed going to be a very, very, very small number. The video counts on you being unable to interpret this probability correctly though (granted I don't think the creators of the video are being purposefully deceptive; I think they're just wrong). It counts on you just seeing the small number and concluding that if it's that small, it must be improbable. But this probability can be deceiving - the probability of a constant taking on any particular value equal to the probability of it taking on any other value ; just 1/n. You can't really say that the physical constants observed in our universe are improbable without saying that observing any particular values for the physical constants in ANY universe AT ALL is just as equally improbable.

It's similar to the problem of a lottery winner. Let's say all ticket buyers go out and buy only 1 lottery ticket. The probability of any particular one of them winning is equal to the probability of any particular other person winning. Yet, there is a winner. Is the winner warranted in concluding that his winning is due to design rather than chance, after all his chances of winning were extremely improbable? No, his conclusion would be the result of a selection bias.

To say that observing our physical constants was unlikely, you would have to compare it against some sort of alternatives. To do this you would need data, or at least something other than assuming a uniform distribution. You would need something like an average for each of the constants, then our universe would need to be sufficiently different from average, then you would have to show that ours wasn't due to a statistical error, but rather conscious design. What would really be ideal is data on the physical constants in God-designed and non-designed universes, but given that we only observe this universe and the issue in question is the existence of a designer in the first place.....oh well.

I don't think the video's reasoning on the implausibility of chance is warranted.

 

[JimmieD]

Which is a paticularly illustrative way of putting the anthropic principle; if weren't what it is, it would be something other than that.

Yes, I think it's a way of stating a case for the anthropic principle.

 

[nl]

What happened moments after the Big Bang?

See link: What happened moments after the Big Bang? | WTVR.com

According to this article, the universe once expanded at a speed faster (as in much faster) than the speed of light.

If the constants of physics have not always been constant or have had different values in the past, then our understanding becomes very different.

If...
...time is not constant
...if the speed of light were not constant
...if the elements in the periodic table were different with different properties

...then life and science would be very different.

He hath made the earth by his power,
He hath established the world by his wisdom,
And hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. - Jeremiah 10:12