Jump to content


Photo

Why The Earth Could Not Have Been Formed By Big Bang.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
30 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 17 August 2011 - 06:20 AM

Our planet is unique for several reasons.

It's in a solar system that has a

1) Our planet is the right distance from our sun. This is called the habitable zone. It's an area a planet has to be in to support life.
2) We have an ozone layer that deflects most of the harmful rays allowing life to survive. UV rays are the most damaging.
3) The ozone layer and atmosphere let in the right kind of light from the spectrum of light that is generated from our sun, that allows plants to flourish.
4) Our moon controls the tilt of our planet which allows for seasonal changes.
5) Our moon also pulls on the oceans and rivers causing tides which have a natural cleaning effect and keeps water from becoming stagnant.
6) Our sun is a G2 type star that is more stable than the other type stars. An unstable star can spew solar wind so strong that it would strip away our atmosphere.
7) Because our planet has a molten core made mainly of nickel, it can produce a very strong magnetic field that deflects the solar wind that comes from our G2 type star.
8) Our barometric pressure is just right to allow water to exist on this planet in 3 forms (solid, liquid, and gas). This is important because it not only helps clean the water on the planet, but provides much needed water to plants. As a comparison, mars barometric pressures is only 1/4-1/8 that of earth. Water there boils at 50 degrees F. So if there was any that was not frozen, it would be gas. And because warm blooded animals have a body temperature higher than that boiling point, their blood would boil because there is a lot of water mixed with it.
9) The right distance is not the only thing important. But also the rotation speed of our planet. If the planet took 48 hours to make one rotation, it would get very hot in the daytime, and very cold at night making life almost impossible. So even though a planet maybe in the Habital zone, it's rotation speed will determine if life can exist there are not.
10) Gravity is important as well. To much and life would have it very hard. Not enough and life would have fragile bodies due to the ease of moving around.
11) Size is also important. Even though rotation speed is important, size along with speed determines how long each side of the planet is exposed to light and darkness. The size would actually determine how fast the planet would have to rotate to not expose each side to, to much light or darkness.
12) The planet would have to have a DNA source. No DNA no life regardless of how perfect it is to support life. So it is amazing that DNA, under evolution, would find this planet with all the planets out there.

etc....

There is to much that has to be just right for random chance to get this right in the vastness of space.

#2 powell

powell

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • North Carolina

Posted 17 August 2011 - 06:15 PM

Why are you so certain there is no other planet like it? Other stars have their own habitable zones. Most of your points have to do with our planet, and considering there are many stars (~3x10^11 in the Milky Way alone), would it not be possible for other planets, similar in composition to Earth's, to be in their star's habitable zone?

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 17 August 2011 - 09:32 PM

Why are you so certain there is no other planet like it? Other stars have their own habitable zones. Most of your points have to do with our planet, and considering there are many stars (~3x10^11 in the Milky Way alone), would it not be possible for other planets, similar in composition to Earth's, to be in their star's habitable zone?


So what you are saying is that regardless of the possibilities, a planet in the habital zone = a planet that will have life?

Considering all the different types of planets there are, and not every solar system has to have "any" in the habital zone area. That it will happen anyway? Kind of like all the scify stuff out there that implies there are millions of planets with life that is as intelligent as our own? It's ironic that none of them ever come here to say hi.

So your conclusions are speculations of what you want to be. Wants don;t make new realities.

#4 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 August 2011 - 04:16 AM

Why are you so certain there is no other planet like it? Other stars have their own habitable zones. Most of your points have to do with our planet, and considering there are many stars (~3x10^11 in the Milky Way alone), would it not be possible for other planets, similar in composition to Earth's, to be in their star's habitable zone?


1- Can you provide actual "factual" evidence for these other stars with "their own habitable zones"?
2- Can you provide actual "factual" evidence for any planets in the systems of these "other stars" that meet the critera that our planet has in this star system?
3- Can you provide actual "factual" evidence for life on any other planet in the universe?
4- Are you merely speculating....

Possiblities are not facts. It is possible that there is a tea pot in high orbit around the Earth, but there is no "factual evidence" for such a phenomea; It is possible that there are spotted geese on Venus, but there is no "factual evidence" for such a phenomea.

#5 powell

powell

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • North Carolina

Posted 18 August 2011 - 07:21 AM

I'm not saying all stars have their own habitable zones and that all planets in habitable zones have life. I'm just saying that there is a possibility of other planets like ours in a habitable zone which means there is a chance of life.

#6 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 August 2011 - 02:23 PM

I'm not saying all stars have their own habitable zones and that all planets in habitable zones have life. I'm just saying that there is a possibility of other planets like ours in a habitable zone which means there is a chance of life.


If you go back and re-read my post, you’ll soon realize that I at no time said that you claimed “all stars have their own habitable zones and that all planets in habitable zones have life”. And why you would claim such is beyond me.

Further, you do realize that you have absolutely no evidence to substantiate your “initial” assertion (" Other stars have their own habitable zones"). Therefore you are proceeding completely on faith…. Blind faith at that…

#7 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2401 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 18 August 2011 - 03:07 PM

Why are you so certain there is no other planet like it? Other stars have their own habitable zones. Most of your points have to do with our planet, and considering there are many stars (~3x10^11 in the Milky Way alone), would it not be possible for other planets, similar in composition to Earth's, to be in their star's habitable zone?


Not according to the two evolutionist scientists who wrote the book Rare Earth, one of the few books from evolutionists that I recommend. Many of the points Ikester raised are also mentioned in this book.

Fred

#8 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 August 2011 - 06:08 PM

Not according to the two evolutionist scientists who wrote the book Rare Earth, one of the few books from evolutionists that I recommend. Many of the points Ikester raised are also mentioned in this book.

Fred


Looks like I need to get this book.

#9 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 19 August 2011 - 04:27 PM

what are the odds of a planet having both cellar synthesis and photosythenis.

i was told many planets have one or the other but not both, both are needed for life to exist by an agnostic biologist that is unsure on macroevolution.

#10 Chanzui

Chanzui

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Taipei, Taiwan

Posted 23 August 2011 - 06:09 AM

what are the odds of a planet having both cellar synthesis and photosythenis.

i was told many planets have one or the other but not both, both are needed for life to exist by an agnostic biologist that is unsure on macroevolution.


Whoever told you that was engaging in wishful thinking or being outright dishonest. At present, Earth is the only planet known to have either cellular synthesis or photosynthesis. Also, it is not true to claim that 'both are needed for life to exist.' There are a number of examples on Earth where organisms are capable of existing without photosynthesis, such as around volcanic vents in the sea floor. Also, 'cellular synthesis' isn't really a very descriptive term. It's hard to understand exactly what you mean by this as it's not a term commonly used in biology. Synthesis, when referring to cells, is the process of DNA replication during the cell cycle. Many organisms, in particular the Prokaryotes, do not undergo this phase during binary fission, therefore it could be said that neither are needed for life to exist.

#11 johnsmith1048576

johnsmith1048576

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • California

Posted 25 November 2011 - 04:55 PM

Our planet is unique for several reasons.

It's in a solar system that has a

snip

There is to much that has to be just right for random chance to get this right in the vastness of space.

Ok. I want to start with you agreeing that it must be a very rare event. Let's suppose that we can assign probabilities to each of those events, and assume the probabilities are statistically independent so that we can just multiply them together.

I want you to think about this following experiment. Let's suppose you go to Vegas and play simple 5 card poker for a day. At 5 minutes a hand (rough estimate), that's 96 hands in eight hours. Suppose you play for 8 hours a day, for 7 days. Suppose you record down exactly what hand you were dealt, the exact order of each card, for all hands, keeping the hands in time order as well. I want you to calculate the odds that you were dealt those exact hands in that exact order. Statistically impossible, right? If it's not unlikely enough for you, extend this to every casino in Vegas, for every person who attended in, since Vegas existed.

Obviously it happened, and yet "obviously" it must not have happened because it's so unlikely. You cannot naively dismiss past occurrences because the event was "unlikely" when we have good empirical evidence that the unlikely event did happen. Simplistic arguments from improbability of this form are simply not valid arguments.

Now, what might be a valid argument. As a matter of empirical facts, we haven't captured the hands of everyone who has ever gone to Vegas. If you produce to me a supposed list of hands, then I can safely dismiss it as almost assuredly false because you have no backing evidence that those hands are correct. In other words, the chances that you guessed correctly are miniscule, and thus you are almost assuredly incorrect.

Now, to go back to the original problem, sure, the chances that Earth having all the right conditions is rare. However, to continue the poker analogy, we happen to have very good evidence that this extremely unlikely event happened.

#12 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 November 2011 - 05:57 PM

snip
Ok. I want to start with you agreeing that it must be a very rare event. Let's suppose that we can assign probabilities to each of those events, and assume the probabilities are statistically independent so that we can just multiply them together.

I want you to think about this following experiment. Let's suppose you go to Vegas and play simple 5 card poker for a day. At 5 minutes a hand (rough estimate), that's 96 hands in eight hours. Suppose you play for 8 hours a day, for 7 days. Suppose you record down exactly what hand you were dealt, the exact order of each card, for all hands, keeping the hands in time order as well. I want you to calculate the odds that you were dealt those exact hands in that exact order. Statistically impossible, right? If it's not unlikely enough for you, extend this to every casino in Vegas, for every person who attended in, since Vegas existed.

Obviously it happened, and yet "obviously" it must not have happened because it's so unlikely. You cannot naively dismiss past occurrences because the event was "unlikely" when we have good empirical evidence that the unlikely event did happen. Simplistic arguments from improbability of this form are simply not valid arguments.

Now, what might be a valid argument. As a matter of empirical facts, we haven't captured the hands of everyone who has ever gone to Vegas. If you produce to me a supposed list of hands, then I can safely dismiss it as almost assuredly false because you have no backing evidence that those hands are correct. In other words, the chances that you guessed correctly are miniscule, and thus you are almost assuredly incorrect.

Now, to go back to the original problem, sure, the chances that Earth having all the right conditions is rare. However, to continue the poker analogy, we happen to have very good evidence that this extremely unlikely event happened.


The problem you make into simple math is much more complex. I know a mathematician who can work out the probabilities of this and show that if gambling had these odds, no one would play the odds. That's the very reason you snipped what I said because you did not want to address each point one by one because you would have to face the reality of this.

Also the mathematician I know is not welcome in scientific circles for the same reason he can prove evolution wrong using math. So like YECs are not welcome because of their challenges to evolution, so are mathematicians who do the same thing. Being a evolutionist is a: you have to believe in order to belong or be accepted.

#13 johnsmith1048576

johnsmith1048576

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • California

Posted 25 November 2011 - 06:07 PM

The problem you make into simple math is much more complex. I know a mathematician who can work out the probabilities of this and show that if gambling had these odds, no one would play the odds. That's the very reason you snipped what I said because you did not want to address each point one by one because you would have to face the reality of this.

Also the mathematician I know is not welcome in scientific circles for the same reason he can prove evolution wrong using math. So like YECs are not welcome because of their challenges to evolution, so are mathematicians who do the same thing. Being a evolutionist is a: you have to believe in order to belong or be accepted.

Thus far, I have done my best to explain why this simplistic argument of the OP is wrong. I have presented a full argument. I please ask that you present a full argument as well so that I may be properly equipped to reply. Moreover, I was replying to the OP, not to your mathematician friend. I am sorry that my arguments cannot apply to all variations of an argument, including those not yet presented.

I snipped the various reasons why it's unlikely because it's irrelevant to both the argument and the counter argument. I granted that those things do make the Earth's existence incredibly unlikely from a certain perspective, the perspective of complete ignorance. See conditional probability. However, we are in that perspective. We happen to have more information. To repeat, if it was just a random guess that a certain planet existed somewhere with those properties, then the chances that that guess were right would be exceedingly low. (Perhaps - let's ignore the actual question of how many Earth-like planets there are right now.) However, it's not just a guess. We happen to be on that planet, and thus with the benefit of hind sight, we are quite able to say pretty certainly that there exists a planet with those properties which we're on, just like we're able to say with hind sight no matter how unlikely a sequence of poker hands may be, if we happened to observe them or otherwise have good empirical evidence concerning them, then it happened.

Also, if we want to invoke appeal to authority, then I will also note that I also have a college degree in mathematics from a respected university.

#14 houseofcantor

houseofcantor

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Phoenix, AZ

Posted 29 November 2011 - 11:49 AM

The OP is but another contention of the anthropic principle. The inherent error of this principle, along with philosophical causality, is the assumption of time. Time will be found to be a deception. Science is working on it even as I peck on this keyboard. ;)

#15 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 30 November 2011 - 06:29 PM

The OP is but another contention of the anthropic principle. The inherent error of this principle, along with philosophical causality, is the assumption of time. Time will be found to be a deception. Science is working on it even as I peck on this keyboard. ;)


Are you referring to what this guy claims in the video: Giving enough time you can change anything into anything? Basically time being the answer for all unanswerable questions concerning evolution?



#16 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 30 November 2011 - 06:49 PM

Whoever told you that was engaging in wishful thinking or being outright dishonest. At present, Earth is the only planet known to have either cellular synthesis or photosynthesis. Also, it is not true to claim that 'both are needed for life to exist.' There are a number of examples on Earth where organisms are capable of existing without photosynthesis, such as around volcanic vents in the sea floor. Also, 'cellular synthesis' isn't really a very descriptive term. It's hard to understand exactly what you mean by this as it's not a term commonly used in biology. Synthesis, when referring to cells, is the process of DNA replication during the cell cycle. Many organisms, in particular the Prokaryotes, do not undergo this phase during binary fission, therefore it could be said that neither are needed for life to exist.

i will pass that on to the source of that , she has a masters in zoology and also works in the field.she claimed that only for the planet we have studied so far. she isnt a creationist but doesnt believe fully in the toe.

#17 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 01 December 2011 - 04:51 AM

Why are you so certain there is no other planet like it? Other stars have their own habitable zones. Most of your points have to do with our planet, and considering there are many stars (~3x10^11 in the Milky Way alone), would it not be possible for other planets, similar in composition to Earth's, to be in their star's habitable zone?

They can see planets in the closer stars. If they can see the different elements in star gases, why woudn't they be able to see water?

And how did all these planets just happen? The issue is design. We see what is random--they are called asteroids. They are not round, and alot of them run into things. But I don't see planets doing this. And in the geotime model, they've been doing just fine for billions of years. That's much less plausible than reasoning that such grandeur came from someone higher than us.

#18 Sanae Asani

Sanae Asani

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Netherlands

Posted 01 December 2011 - 08:30 PM

Our planet is unique for several reasons.

It's in a solar system that has a

1) Our planet is the right distance from our sun. This is called the habitable zone. It's an area a planet has to be in to support life.
2) We have an ozone layer that deflects most of the harmful rays allowing life to survive. UV rays are the most damaging.
3) The ozone layer and atmosphere let in the right kind of light from the spectrum of light that is generated from our sun, that allows plants to flourish.
4) Our moon controls the tilt of our planet which allows for seasonal changes.
5) Our moon also pulls on the oceans and rivers causing tides which have a natural cleaning effect and keeps water from becoming stagnant.
6) Our sun is a G2 type star that is more stable than the other type stars. An unstable star can spew solar wind so strong that it would strip away our atmosphere.
7) Because our planet has a molten core made mainly of nickel, it can produce a very strong magnetic field that deflects the solar wind that comes from our G2 type star.
8) Our barometric pressure is just right to allow water to exist on this planet in 3 forms (solid, liquid, and gas). This is important because it not only helps clean the water on the planet, but provides much needed water to plants. As a comparison, mars barometric pressures is only 1/4-1/8 that of earth. Water there boils at 50 degrees F. So if there was any that was not frozen, it would be gas. And because warm blooded animals have a body temperature higher than that boiling point, their blood would boil because there is a lot of water mixed with it.
9) The right distance is not the only thing important. But also the rotation speed of our planet. If the planet took 48 hours to make one rotation, it would get very hot in the daytime, and very cold at night making life almost impossible. So even though a planet maybe in the Habital zone, it's rotation speed will determine if life can exist there are not.
10) Gravity is important as well. To much and life would have it very hard. Not enough and life would have fragile bodies due to the ease of moving around.
11) Size is also important. Even though rotation speed is important, size along with speed determines how long each side of the planet is exposed to light and darkness. The size would actually determine how fast the planet would have to rotate to not expose each side to, to much light or darkness.
12) The planet would have to have a DNA source. No DNA no life regardless of how perfect it is to support life. So it is amazing that DNA, under evolution, would find this planet with all the planets out there.

etc....

There is to much that has to be just right for random chance to get this right in the vastness of space.



1) life as we know it, there is no evidence that there is no life in other solar systems. just as there is no evidence there is life, so its only an assumption.
2,3) Ozone is a direct effect of life, not a cause for life
4,5) other planets have moons and tidal effects aswell
7) almost every planet has a magnetic force. take for example the magnetic field of Jupiter, 1000 times bigger than the one of earth, so big that, if we could see it, it would span half the sky
8)there is water on other planets/moons for example the moon Europa
9, 11) a bigger planet with faster rotation would give same light/darkness

#19 Sanae Asani

Sanae Asani

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Netherlands

Posted 02 December 2011 - 03:13 AM

one thing i forgot to add is that,
if water takes the perfect form of the glas it is poured in , does that mean water is "designed" or "made" to fit the glas?

#20 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 05 December 2011 - 09:49 PM

Why are you so certain there is no other planet like it? Other stars have their own habitable zones. Most of your points have to do with our planet, and considering there are many stars (~3x10^11 in the Milky Way alone), would it not be possible for other planets, similar in composition to Earth's, to be in their star's habitable zone?

I don't see how atheists think they can get away with making these kinds of retreats to the possible, but yet theists aren't allowed to do it when debating atheists. The hypocrisy of atheism is simply astounding.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users