Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
evo javlja ti se Bog iz Kurana 39:60 Na Sudnjem danu vidjećeš pocrnjela lica onih koji su o Allahu laži govorili. A zar u Džehennemu neće biti boravište oholih?
Hajde neka, baš sam uvijek maštao da izgledam kao Harry Belafonte barem jedan dan, može i sudnji.
Lijepe vijesti nam stizu sa Jupiterovog mjeseca Evropa. 31 Marta je objavljen jedan istrazivacki rad kojeg cu ja probati ukratko ovdje opisati. Naime, vec se znalo da Evropa ima sve gradivne elemente za zivot osim oksigena. I to u svojim okeanima. Ovaj mjesec je zaledjen na povrsini ali mu je unutrasnjost topla, ima dosta okeana, slanu vodu, svu potrebnu hemiju za pravljenje zivotnih ciklusa. Medjutim, nije se moglo potvrditi da li ima kisika. Sad je izasao ovaj naucni rad koji sugerise da bi Evropa mogla imati mnogo kisika u svojim okeanima. Naime, kisik je zarobljen na povrsiti mjeseca i s vremena na vrijeme jedan dio kore se otopi i stvori se "balon" kisika koji se ponovo zaledi i biva odvucen dublje. Citav ovaj naucni rad se bazira na procesu kako se to desava ali u principu to je to. Naucnici sada imaju mehanizam po kojem kisik odlazi u okeane i s tim imaju sve potrebne elemente za zivot.
Medjutim, da bi se to dokazalo treba i otici gore. U martu 2024-e NASA planira misiju na Evropu. Sam let do Jupitera ce trajati 5 godina, onda treba probusiti koru mjeseca i uci u okean. I to bi moglo potrajati par godina. Oni ocekuju da bi prvi podaci sa Evrope trebali biti dostupni u 2034-oj. To je nekih 12 godina. Mnogo u ljudskom zivotu, ali u historijskom kontekstu to je nista. Naucnici ne ocekuju da vide zivot na nacin na koji postoji u Zemljinim okeanima (ribe, alge i sl) ali postoji velika vjerovatnoca da ce pronaci nesto. Uzbudljivo
Šta bi bilo kad bi bilo, ali da se tu u ispred praga Zemlje locira neki trag života, mogli bi slobodno zaključiti da je život gotovo pa konstanta u svemiru, da ga ima gdje hoćeš i koliko hoćeš.
apsidejzi wrote: ↑03/04/2022 08:45
Lijepe vijesti nam stizu sa Jupiterovog mjeseca Evropa. 31 Marta je objavljen jedan istrazivacki rad kojeg cu ja probati ukratko ovdje opisati. Naime, vec se znalo da Evropa ima sve gradivne elemente za zivot osim oksigena. I to u svojim okeanima. Ovaj mjesec je zaledjen na povrsini ali mu je unutrasnjost topla, ima dosta okeana, slanu vodu, svu potrebnu hemiju za pravljenje zivotnih ciklusa. Medjutim, nije se moglo potvrditi da li ima kisika. Sad je izasao ovaj naucni rad koji sugerise da bi Evropa mogla imati mnogo kisika u svojim okeanima. Naime, kisik je zarobljen na povrsiti mjeseca i s vremena na vrijeme jedan dio kore se otopi i stvori se "balon" kisika koji se ponovo zaledi i biva odvucen dublje. Citav ovaj naucni rad se bazira na procesu kako se to desava ali u principu to je to. Naucnici sada imaju mehanizam po kojem kisik odlazi u okeane i s tim imaju sve potrebne elemente za zivot.
Medjutim, da bi se to dokazalo treba i otici gore. U martu 2024-e NASA planira misiju na Evropu. Sam let do Jupitera ce trajati 5 godina, onda treba probusiti koru mjeseca i uci u okean. I to bi moglo potrajati par godina. Oni ocekuju da bi prvi podaci sa Evrope trebali biti dostupni u 2034-oj. To je nekih 12 godina. Mnogo u ljudskom zivotu, ali u historijskom kontekstu to je nista. Naucnici ne ocekuju da vide zivot na nacin na koji postoji u Zemljinim okeanima (ribe, alge i sl) ali postoji velika vjerovatnoca da ce pronaci nesto. Uzbudljivo
da bi bilo kompleksnog zivota na drugim planetama moras puno toga da ispunis da bi se to uspostavio zivot tu.
koliko samo parametara treba za kompleksan zivot na zemlji, kada bi nabrajao to su stotine parametara ako ne i hiljade
vaučer wrote: ↑03/04/2022 11:00
Šta bi bilo kad bi bilo, ali da se tu u ispred praga Zemlje locira neki trag života, mogli bi slobodno zaključiti da je život gotovo pa konstanta u svemiru, da ga ima gdje hoćeš i koliko hoćeš.
nije nemoguce da ima jednostavnih oblika zivota na drugim planetama ali zivot kopleksnih bica kao ljudi i zivotinje skoro pa nemoguca stvar jer puno stvari mora da se poklopi da bi mogao kompleksan zivot biti moguc.
Kao i obično u ovim raspravama, mislim da jednostavno odbijaš prihvatiti veličinu svemira i vremena. Brojke su gotovo neshvatljive. Ako u jednom sustavu, u jednom trenutku, lociraš dva primjera života - možeš slobodno zaključiti da je život, kompleksan, primitivan i sve između - potpuno uobičajena pojava u svemiru. Što naravno potpuno demolira uobražene tvrdnje ljudi koji vjeruju da su centralni aspekt plana stvaranja i da je sve formirano radi njih.
apsidejzi wrote: ↑03/04/2022 08:45
Lijepe vijesti nam stizu sa Jupiterovog mjeseca Evropa. 31 Marta je objavljen jedan istrazivacki rad kojeg cu ja probati ukratko ovdje opisati. Naime, vec se znalo da Evropa ima sve gradivne elemente za zivot osim oksigena. I to u svojim okeanima. Ovaj mjesec je zaledjen na povrsini ali mu je unutrasnjost topla, ima dosta okeana, slanu vodu, svu potrebnu hemiju za pravljenje zivotnih ciklusa. Medjutim, nije se moglo potvrditi da li ima kisika. Sad je izasao ovaj naucni rad koji sugerise da bi Evropa mogla imati mnogo kisika u svojim okeanima. Naime, kisik je zarobljen na povrsiti mjeseca i s vremena na vrijeme jedan dio kore se otopi i stvori se "balon" kisika koji se ponovo zaledi i biva odvucen dublje. Citav ovaj naucni rad se bazira na procesu kako se to desava ali u principu to je to. Naucnici sada imaju mehanizam po kojem kisik odlazi u okeane i s tim imaju sve potrebne elemente za zivot.
Medjutim, da bi se to dokazalo treba i otici gore. U martu 2024-e NASA planira misiju na Evropu. Sam let do Jupitera ce trajati 5 godina, onda treba probusiti koru mjeseca i uci u okean. I to bi moglo potrajati par godina. Oni ocekuju da bi prvi podaci sa Evrope trebali biti dostupni u 2034-oj. To je nekih 12 godina. Mnogo u ljudskom zivotu, ali u historijskom kontekstu to je nista. Naucnici ne ocekuju da vide zivot na nacin na koji postoji u Zemljinim okeanima (ribe, alge i sl) ali postoji velika vjerovatnoca da ce pronaci nesto. Uzbudljivo
da bi bilo kompleksnog zivota na drugim planetama moras puno toga da ispunis da bi se to uspostavio zivot tu.
koliko samo parametara treba za kompleksan zivot na zemlji, kada bi nabrajao to su stotine parametara ako ne i hiljade
Niko nije rekao da ima zivot. Receno je da imaju svi preduslovi a budemo vidjeli za 12 godina kad spuste podmornicu u Evropine okeane hocel naci kakve ribe
vaučer wrote: ↑03/04/2022 14:24
Kao i obično u ovim raspravama, mislim da jednostavno odbijaš prihvatiti veličinu svemira i vremena. Brojke su gotovo neshvatljive. Ako u jednom sustavu, u jednom trenutku, lociraš dva primjera života - možeš slobodno zaključiti da je život, kompleksan, primitivan i sve između - potpuno uobičajena pojava u svemiru. Što naravno potpuno demolira uobražene tvrdnje ljudi koji vjeruju da su centralni aspekt plana stvaranja i da je sve formirano radi njih.
velicina svemira nista ne znaci jer mali milion paramtara treba da se sve poklopi da bi imao kompleksan zivot kao sto ga imamo na zemlji
od tacne tipa zvijezde, nemoze svakakvu zvijezdu imati, mora biti tip G2V, ne moze biti svugdje ni u galakciji, moras biti na tacnoj pozicji u glaakciji, ni predaleko ni preblizu centra, gje bi zvijezde imale utjecaj na putanju objekata suncevog sistema, moras imati mjesec, moras tacan obrtaj oko zemlje imati, moras imati nagib radi sezona da bi se mogla civilizacija baviti agrikulturom, moras imati atmosferu, moras imati tacne doze kisika, moras imati planete poput jupitera i saturna da te stite od asteroida i kometa, moras imati tektonske ploce, moras imati masa toga jos da s esve potrefi da bi zivot bio moguc.
nije to samo hajde daj nek je udaljena planeta tacno od svoje Host star, domacina zvijezde, cak sta vise nesmijes da je u Tidal lockingu, to jeste da je zakljucana rotacija.
da bi bilo kompleksnog zivota na drugim planetama moras puno toga da ispunis da bi se to uspostavio zivot tu.
koliko samo parametara treba za kompleksan zivot na zemlji, kada bi nabrajao to su stotine parametara ako ne i hiljade
Niko nije rekao da ima zivot. Receno je da imaju svi preduslovi a budemo vidjeli za 12 godina kad spuste podmornicu u Evropine okeane hocel naci kakve ribe
jedan od najboljih tekstova na temu INteligentnog dizajna , sta je sve potrebno za zivot kako se sve mora podesiti da bi mogao covjek zivjeti
PART1
Best inteligent design evidences i have read so far copied from the book Case for a Creator
A BOLD AND AUDACIOUS CLAIM
Earth's location, its size, its composition, its structure, its atmosphere, its temperature, its internal dynamics, and its many intricate cycles that are essential to life-the carbon cycle, the oxygen cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the phosphorous cycle, the sulfur cycle, the calcium cycle, the sodium cycle, and so on-testify to the degree to which our planet is exquisitely and precariously balanced.20
As they begin their influential textbook Earth, Frank Press of the National Academy of Sciences and Raymond Siever of Harvard University write about what they call "the uniqueness of planet Earth."21
They note how its atmosphere filters out harmful ultraviolet radiation while working with the oceans to moderate the climate through the storing and redistributing of solar energy, and how the Earth is just large enough so that its gravity retains the atmosphere and yet just small enough not to keep too many harmful gases. Then they describe the Earth's interior as ...
…a gigantic but delicately balanced heat engine fueled by radioactivity.... Were it running more slowly ... the continents might not have evolved to their present form.... Iron may never have melted and sunk to the liquid core, and the magnetic field would never have developed.... If there had been more radioactive fuel, and therefore a faster running engine, volcanic dust would have blotted out the sun, the atmosphere would have been oppressively dense, and the surface would have been racked by daily earthquakes and volcanic explosions.22
These kind of highly choreographed geological processes-and there are lots of them-leave me shaking my head at the astounding ways in which our biosphere is precisely tuned for life. Even more interesting, though, is the "why" question behind them. What accounts for all of these astounding "coincidences?"
Press and Siever, while marveling that Earth "is a very special place," don't broach the possibility of design.23 Ward and Brownlee skirt the issue in Rare Earth, preferring instead to occasionally pepper in words like "sheer luck" and "a rare chance happening."24 At a conference, Ward remarked: "We are just incredibly lucky. Somebody had to win the big lottery, and we were it…But does luck really explain why Earth enjoys this incredible convergence of extremely unlikely circumstances that have allowed human beings to flourish?
"Well, scientists have generally followed the Copernican Principle by saying that our planet is ordinary and that therefore life undoubtedly abounds in the universe," Richards began. "We believe, however, the evidence is quite to the contrary." He gestured toward his colleague to continue.
"We've found that our location in the universe, in our galaxy, in our solar system, as well as such things as the size and rotation of the Earth, the mass of the moon and sun and so forth-a whole range of factors-conspire together in an amazing way to make Earth a habitable planet," Gonzalez said. "And even beyond that, we've found that the very same conditions that allow for intelligent life on Earth also make it strangely well-suited for viewing and analyzing the universe."
"And we suspect this is not an accident," Richards added. "In fact, we raise the question of whether the universe has been literally designed for discovery."
THE INGREDIENTS FOR LIFE
With that framework set, I moved ahead to discuss one of the main attitudes of scientists who embrace the Copernican Principle. "They believe if you can just find a place anywhere in the universe where water stays liquid for a long enough period of time, then life will develop, just as it did on Earth," I said. "I assume you don't agree with that."
"No, I don't," Gonzalez said. "It's true that in order to have life you need water-which is the universal solvent-for reactions to take place, as well as carbon, which serves as the core atom of the information-carrying structural molecules of life. But you also need a lot more. Humans require twenty-six essential elements; a bacterium about sixteen. Intermediate life forms are between those two numbers. The problem is that not just any planetary body will be the source of all those chemical ingredients in the necessary forms and amounts."
I interrupted to point out that science fiction writers have managed to speculate about extra-terrestrial life that's built in a radically different form-for instance, creatures based on silicon instead of carbon.
Gonzalez was shaking his head before I had even finished my question. "That just won't work," he insisted. "Chemistry is one of the better understood areas of science. We know that you just can't get certain atoms to stick together in sufficient number and complexity to give you large molecules like carbon can. You can't get around it. And you just can't get other types of liquids to dissolve as many different kinds of chemicals as you can with water. There's something like half a dozen different properties of both water and carbon that are optimal for life. Nothing else comes close. Silicon falls far short of carbon.
"Unfortunately, people see life as being easy to create. They think it's enough merely to have liquid water, because they see life as an epiphenomenon-just a piece of slime mold growing on an inert piece of granite. Actually, the Earth's geology and biology interact very tightly with each other. You can't think of life as being independent of the geophysical and meteorological processes of the planet. They interact in a very intimate way. So you need not only the right chemicals for life but also a planetary environment that's tuned to life."
That sparked a related issue. Scientists have dreamed of terraforming a planet like Mars, essentially making over its environment to create a planet that's more conducive to settlement by humans. "Would that be very difficult?" I asked.
"Absolutely. From the magnetic field to plate tectonics to the carbon dioxide cycle-ongoing life depends on a variety of very cornplicated interactions with the planet," he said.
Richards jumped in. "People generally think that because they plant a seed and it grows that it's easy to create the right environment for life, but that's misleading," he said. "A good example is the hermetically sealed biosphere that some people constructed in Arizona several years ago. They thought it would be relatively easy to create a self-contained environment conducive to life, but they had a devil of a time trying to make it work."
"But life can also exist in some terribly harsh conditions," I pointed out. "For instance, there are life forms that live off of deepsea thermal vents. They don't seem to need oxygen or any particular support from the broader environment."
"On the contrary," Gonzalez said, "the only things down there that don't need oxygen are some microorganisms that breathe methane. But larger organisms, which need to regulate their metabolism, are invariably oxygen-breathers. The oxygen comes from surface life and marine algae. The oxygen gets mixed in with the ocean and transported into deep waters. So those organisms are very directly tied to the surface and the overall ecosystem of the planet."
Astounded by the Earth's fine-tuned physical, chemical, and biological interrelationships, some writers have gone so far as to liken our biosphere to a "superorganism" that is quite literally alive. In fact, James Lovelock's pantheistic Gaia Hypothesis even seeks to deify our planet. However, Gonzalez and Richards said it's unnecessary to go that far.
"Despite these admittedly incredible interrelationships, there's nothing that requires anyone to see the Earth itself as being an organism, especially a god or goddess," Richards said.
Then he turned to an image quite familiar to those who see the earmarks of design in Earth's complex and interconnected machinery. "That's sort of like deifying a watch because of its amazing properties," he said, "rather than looking beyond the watch to the one who made it."
THE HOSTILE WORLD OF M13
I granted the point that only certain kinds of planetary environments can play host to life. On the other hand, the universe is salted with trillions of stars, with countless terrestrial bodies undoubtedly revolving around them. Surely the mathematical odds favor many stars spawning Earth-like habitats-a point that argues against the idea that Earth is special and therefore designed.
But while my untrained eyes see each star as having equal potential to preside over a civilization-bearing solar system, I was soon to learn differently as I pursued questions concerning the conditions that are necessary for life to flourish.
I turned toward Gonzalez. "As we look out at the billions of stars that constitute our Milky Way galaxy," I said, "can't we logically assume that planets teeming with life are strewn all over the place?"
"No," he said unequivocally, "that's not a logical assumption based on the evidence. Along with Don Brownlee and Peter Ward of the University of Washington, I developed a concept called the Galactic Habitable Zone-that is, a zone in the galaxy where habitable planets might be possible. You see, you just can't form a habitable planet anywhere; there's a large number of threats to life as you go from place to place."
My mind flashed back to when Drake and Sagan beamed their message to the large concentration of stars called globular cluster M13. Their theory was that by transmitting their greeting toward a place packed with stars, there would be a higher chance of detection by an intelligent civilization. When I asked Gonzalez what he thought of that experiment, his reply was immediately dismissive.
"The problem is that if the probability of life at any one star is zero, then the probability for all the stars remains zero," he said.
"Zero?" I replied. "There are more than a quarter million stars in that globular cluster. Don't you think any of them harbor planets with life?"
Gonzalez stood his ground. "A globular cluster is one of the worst places in the entire galaxy to expect any life," he replied.
"Why?"
"Two reasons," he said. "First, globular clusters are among the most ancient things in our galaxy. Since they're extremely old, their stars have a very low abundance of heavy elements-carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, calcium, and so on. Instead, they're made up almost entirely of hydrogen and helium. In contrast, Earth is composed of iron, oxygen, magnesium, and silicone. Next comes sulfur.
"You see, the Big Bang produced basically hydrogen and helium. That's what the earliest stars were made of. The heavier elements were synthesized-cooked, if you will-in the interior of stars. Eventually, when these stars exploded as supernovae, these elements got expelled into the interstellar medium. They coalesced into other stars, where more heavy elements were cooked. Then they were expelled again and again, with stars subsequently containing ever-greater amounts of these `metals,' or heavier elements.
"Now, you need these elements to eventually build terrestrial planets like Earth. Because the very old stars in globular clusters formed so early that they're composed virtually exclusively of hydrogen and helium, they're not going to have planets accompanying them. Maybe there will be dust, or grains, or boulders, but that's about it. You're not going to have Earth-size planets.
"The second problem is that globular clusters are so densely packed with stars that they wouldn't allow for stable, circular orbits to exist around them. The gravitational pull of the stars would create elliptical orbits that would take a hypothetical planet into extremes of cold and heat, which would create a life-prohibitive situation."
His assessment made sense, but it caused me to wonder why Sagan and Drake, both knowledgeable astronomers, would waste their time trying to communicate with the stars of M13. Gonzalez shook his head when I asked him about it.
"It's really surprising that they would think there would be any chance of a civilization receiving their message in a globular cluster," Gonzalez said. "They should have known better! Frankly, I think they were so deluded by their complete belief in the metaphysical Copernican Principle-that life was just going to be everywhere in the galaxy-that they overlooked the facts."
LIVING IN THE SAFE ZONE
Gonzalez's explanation made me wonder about the suitability of other places to harbor intelligent life. I knew that there are three basic types of galaxies in our universe. First, there are spiral galaxies like our own Milky Way. These are dominated by a central spherical bulge and a disk with "spiral arms" extending outward from the nucleus in a spiral pattern, resembling a celestial pinwheel. Second, there are elliptical galaxies, which are sort of egg-shaped. And, third, there are irregular galaxies, which appear disorganized and distorted. I asked Gonzalez to assess the life-bearing potential of each one.
"Certainly, our type of galaxy optimizes habitability, because it provides safe zones," he said, his tone professorial. "And Earth happens to be located in a safe area, which is why life has been able to flourish here.
"You see, galaxies have varying degrees of star formation, where interstellar gases coalesce to form stars, star clusters, and massive stars that blow up as supernovae. Places with active star formation are very dangerous, because that's where you have supernovae exploding at a fairly high rate. In our galaxy, those dangerous places are primarily in the spiral arms, where there are also hazardous giant molecular clouds. Fortunately, though, we happen to be situated safely between the Sagittarius and Perseus spiral arms.
"Also, we're very far from the nucleus of the galaxy, which is also a dangerous place. We now know that there's a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy. In fact, the Hubble space telescope has found that nearly every large nearby galaxy has a giant black hole at its nucleus. And believe me-these are dangerous things!
"Most black holes, at any given time, are inactive. But whenever anything gets near or falls into one, it gets torn up by the strong tidal forces. Lots of high energy is released-gamma rays, X-rays, particle radiation-and anything in the inner region of the galaxy would be subjected to high radiation levels. That's very dangerous for life forms. The center of the galaxy is also dangerous because there are more supernovae exploding in that region.
"One more thing: the composition of a spiral galaxy changes as you go out from the center. The abundance of heavy elements is greater towards the center, because that's where star formation has been more vigorous over the history of the galaxy. So it has been able to cook the hydrogen and helium into heavy elements more quickly, whereas in the outer disk of the galaxy,
star formation has been going on more slowly over the years and so the abundance of heavy elements isn't quite as high. Consequently, the outer regions of the disk are less likely to have Earth-type planets.
"Now, put all of this together-the inner region of the galaxy is much more dangerous from radiation and other threats; the outer part of the galaxy isn't going to be able to form Earth-like planets because the heavy elements are not abundant enough; and I haven't even mentioned how the thin disk of our galaxy helps our sun stay in its desirable circular orbit. A very eccentric orbit could cause it to cross spiral arms and visit the dangerous inner regions of the galaxy, but being circular it remains in the safe zone.
"All of this," he said, his voice sounding a bit triumphant, "works together to create a narrow safe zone where life-sustaining planets are possible."
SCANNING THE STARS FOR LIFE
Suddenly, the Earth was sounding pretty special, nestled as it is in a sliver of space that gives it safe haven from the otherwise menacing conditions of the Milky Way. But what about other types of galaxies? Might they also provide threat-free neighborhoods for lifepopulated planets?
"What about elliptical galaxies?" I asked Gonzalez. "Do they have the potential to harbor life?"
"Elliptical galaxies look amorphous and are sort of egg-shaped, with stars having very random orbits, like bees swarming a beehive," he explained. "The problem for life in these galaxies is that the stars visit every region, which means they'll occasionally visit the dangerous, dense inner regions, where a black hole may be active. In any event, you're less likely to find Earth-like planets in elliptical galaxies because most of them lack the heavy elements needed to form them."
This was an important point, because I knew that most galaxies fall into the elliptical category.
"Most elliptical galaxies are less massive and luminous than our galaxy," Gonzalez continued. "Our galaxy is on the top one or two percent of the most massive and luminous. The bigger the galaxy, the more heavy elements it can have, because its stronger gravity can attract more hydrogen and helium and cycle them to build heavy elements. In the low-mass galaxies, which make up the vast majority, you can have whole galaxies without a single Earth-like planet. They just don't have enough of the heavy elements to construct Earths. Just like a globular cluster-you can have a whole globular cluster with hundreds of thousands of stars, and yet there won't be a single Earth.
"If you look at the deepest pictures ever taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, they show literally thousands of galaxies when the universe was really young. People have commented, `Wow, look at all those galaxies! I wonder how many civilizations there are looking back at us?' In that picture, I'd say zero. Thousands and thousands and thousands of galaxies-but zero Earths, because the heavier elements haven't built up enough yet."
Richards interrupted to say, "Of course, we're not looking at these galaxies as they exist now; we're looking back in time, say, nine billion years ago. It's possible that some of those galaxies are now at the state where the Milky Way is. We don't know for sure."
"But," added Gonzalez, "this was back when it was much more dangerous, because it's the era of quasars, supernovae going off, and black holes. Even if you had a few regions in the galaxy where there were sufficient heavy elements to build Earths, they would have been so irradiated that life wouldn't be possible."
With elliptical galaxies being unlikely sites for budding civilizations, I turned to the last category of galaxy, called irregulars. "What's their potential for life?" I asked.
"Like the ellipticals, they also don't provide a safe harbor. In fact, they're worse. They're distorted and ripped apart, with supernovae going off throughout their volume. There are no safe places where there are fewer supernovae exploding, like we have between our spiral arms.
"In fact, astronomers keep finding new threats to life. For example, we're learning more about gamma ray bursts, which are more powerful than a supernova. If one of these goes off near you, the lights go out. So the probability for there being civilizations elsewhere actually keeps declining as we learn about the new threats that we didn't know about before."
"What's your opinion, then, about where Earth is located in the universe?" I asked.
"In terms of habitability, I think we are in the best possible place," Gonzalez said. "That's because our location provides enough building blocks to yield an Earth, while providing a low level of threats to life. I really can't come up with an example of another place in the galaxy that is as friendly to life as our location. Sometimes people claim you can be in any part of any galaxy. Well, I've studied other regions-spiral arms, galactic centers, globular clusters, edge of disks-and no matter where it is, it's worse for life. I can't think of any better place than where we are."
"That's ironic," I said. "It's the reverse of the Copernican Principle."
Richards agreed. "The propaganda of the Copernican Principle has been that the long march of science has shown how common and ordinary our situation is. But the trend is in the opposite direction. The more you pile on the threats we're discovering in most places in the universe, and you contrast that with the many ways we're in a cocoon of safety, the more our situation appears special."
"The most famous example is our own solar system," Gonzalez said. "At one time or another, scientists have speculated that there are civilizations on just about every body in our solar system-the moon, Mars, Jupiter.
"Percival Lowell built his own observatory in Arizona to find these civilizations on Mars. He actually quoted Copernicus to justify his belief that we can't be the only civilization. Now they've backtracked to the point of saying, well, maybe there's some very simple slime mold beneath the surface of Mars or Europa. And even that is extremely questionable. That's how far back they've had to retreat."
"Very often," observed Richards, "the Copernican Principle describes properties that don't matter. Who really cares whether we're in the physical center of the galaxy? It's irrelevant! What really matters is being in the place that's most conducive to life. And that's exactly where Earth finds itself."
PLANETS CIRCLING OTHER STARS
Within the last few years, astronomers finally have been able to discover planets orbiting other stars-a major confirmation of what was once merely widespread speculation. "Doesn't this confirm that there's nothing particularly out of the ordinary about our nine-planet system?" I asked.
"I'll concede," said Gonzalez, "that it demonstrates our solar system is not unique when it comes to having planets circling a star. But prior to the detection of the first planet orbiting another sun-like star in 1995, the expectation was that astronomers would find giant gas planets in large circular orbits, much like Jupiter. Jupiter orbits the sun in twelve years in a nearly circular orbit, far out from the terrestrial planets-Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars.
"However, we're finding that the planets circling other stars are quite different from Jupiter. They orbit over a full range of distances, from just a klix fraction of an Astronomical Unit-which is the distance between the Earth and the sun-out to several Astronomical Units. Most of their orbits are highly elliptical; very few are circular. These strongly non-circular orbits utterly surprised astronomers. Because they strongly subscribed to the Copernican Principle, they had expected that other planetary systems would be just like ours. And that expectation was basically dashed."
"What's wrong with an elliptical orbit for those kind of planets?" I asked.
"It poses a problem for the habitability of any terrestrial planets in their system, because it would make them less likely to have stable circular orbits," Gonzalez replied. "For example, Earth's orbit is almost a perfect circle. A planet with the mass of the Earth would be sensitive to any of the gas giant planets if they had more eccentric orbits. The Earthlike planet's own orbit would be affected, making it less circular and therefore subjecting the planet to dangerous surface temperature variations."
"So," I said, "if our own Jupiter had a more elliptical orbit, the Earth wouldn't be able to maintain as circular an orbit and have the steady temperature and predictable climate that come with that."
"That's right," he said. "In fact, even small variations in our nearly circular orbit can cause ice ages, because of temperature shifts on the surface of the planet. We have to maintain a circular orbit as much as possible to maintain a relatively steady temperature. That's only possible because Jupiter's orbit isn't very elliptical and therefore doesn't threaten to distort our round orbit."
TAKING HITS FOR EARTH
Now that we were discussing our solar system, I wanted to delve into other "local" factors that make our planet habitable. "What is it about our solar system that contributes to life on Earth?" I asked.
"A surprising amount," said Gonzalez. "More and more, astronomers are learning how the other planets tie into the habitability of Earth. For example, George Wetherill of the Carnegie Institution showed in 1994 that Jupiter-which is huge, more than three hundred times the mass of the Earth-acts as a shield to protect us from too many comet impacts. It actually deflects comets and keeps many of them from coming into the inner solar system, where they could collide with Earth with life-extinguishing consequences.
"This was illustrated very nicely by the impact of Comet Shoemaker Levy 9 into Jupiter in July, 1994. This comet was attracted by Jupiter's tremendous gravitational pull and broke into fragments, with all of there hitting Jupiter. Even Saturn and Uranus participate in that kind of cometcatching.
"In addition, the other planets in our inner solar system protect us from getting bombarded by asteroids from the asteroid belt. The asteroids are mostly between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Our first line of defense is Mars, being at the edge of the asteroid belt. It takes a lot of hits for us. Venus does too. If you want to get an idea of the stuff that probably would have hit the Earth, look at the surface of the moon. The moon, unfortunately, has too little surface area to provide much protection, but it's a nice record."
"What about the Earth's position in the solar system?" I asked.
"How much does that contribute to its habitability?"
"There's a concept invented by astrobiologists called the Circumstellar Habitable Zone.
That's the region around a star where you can have liquid water on the surface of a terrestrial planet. This is determined by the amount of light you get from the host star.
"You can't be too close, otherwise too much water evaporates into the atmosphere and it causes a runaway greenhouse effect, and you boil off the oceans. We think that might be what happened to Venus. But if you get too far out, it gets too cold. Water and carbon dioxide freeze and you eventually develop runaway glaciation.
"The main point is that as you go further out from the sun, you have to increase the carbon dioxide content of the planet's atmosphere. This is necessary in order to trap the sun's radiation and keep water liquid. The problem is that there wouldn't be enough oxygen to have mammal-like organisms. It's only in the very inner edge of the Circumstellar Habitable Zone where you can have low enough carbon dioxide and high enough oxygen to sustain complex animal life. And that's where we are."
"So if the Earth's distance from the sun were moved by, say, five percent either way, what would happen?" I asked.
"Disaster," came his quick reply. "Animal life would be impossible. The zone for animal life in the solar system is much narrower than most people think."
"And that's why you need a circular orbit like the one Earth has," Richards added. "You don't just want to be in the Circumstellar Habitable Zone part of the time; you want to be in it continuously. It doesn't do you any good to have melted water for four months and then have the whole planet freeze up again."
OUR OVERACHIEVING SUN
Obviously, the key to continued life on Earth is the sun, whose nuclear fusion, taking place at twenty-seven million degrees Fahrenheit at its core, provides us with consistent warmth and energy ninetythree million miles away. Ever since witnessing a solar eclipse as a child, carefully protecting my eyes by observing the phenomenon through a projected image inside a cardboard box, I have been fascinated by this fiery behemoth, whose mass is an incomprehensible three hundred thousand times greater than the Earth's.
However, I had always been told that there was nothing out of the ordinary about the sun. As one text says flatly: "The sun is a common fixed star."33 And if the sun is truly so average, so typical, so undistinguished, then the logical implication would be that lots of life-bearing Earths must be orbiting around lots of similar suns throughout the universe.
"Today, astronomers know a lot more about stars than they did when I was growing up," I said to Gonzalez. "Is the consensus still that the sun is just a common star?"
"No, not at all," Gonzalez replied. "It's just recently that some new astronomy textbooks are finally starting to say that, well, the sun really is unusual after all. For instance, it's among the ten percent most massive stars in the galaxy. In fact, if you pick a star at random, you're likely to pick one that's far less massive than the sun, usually red dwarfs, which make up about eighty percent of stars. Another eight or nine percent are called G dwarfs, most of which also are less massive than the sun. The sun is a yellow dwarf; technically, it has a G2 Spectral Type."
His comment about the ubiquity of red dwarfs piqued my curiosity. "Since red dwarfs dominate the universe, let's talk about them for a moment. Are they conducive to having life-bearing planets orbiting them?" I asked.
"I don't think they are," Gonzalez said.
"Why not?"
"Several reasons. First, red dwarfs emit most of their radiation in the red part of the spectrum, which makes photosynthesis less efficient. To work well, photosynthesis requires blue and red light. But a much greater problem is that as you decrease the mass of a star, you also decrease its luminosity. A planet would have to orbit this kind of star much closer in order to have sufficient heat to maintain liquid water on its surface.
"The problem is the tidal force between the star and the planet gets stronger as you move in, so the planet will spin down and eventually end up in what's called a tidally locked state. This means it always presents the same face towards the star. That's very bad, because it causes large temperature differences between the lit side and the unlit side. The lit side would be terribly dry and hot, while the unlit side would be prohibitively icy and cold. And there's another problem-red dwarfs have flares."
"But," I said, "the sun has flares too."
"That's right. And the intensity of flares on red dwarfs is about the same as on our sun. The difference is that red dwarfs as a whole emit much less total light, so they're much less luminous. That means in comparison to the luminosity of the star, the output of the flare is high."
"Whoa!" I said, putting up my hand in protest. "You've lost me."
Gonzalez regrouped. "Okay, let me get to the bottom line: for this kind of star, flares cause the star's total luminosity to vary. In fact, astronomers call them `flare stars,' and they watch as they get much brighter for a while and then dimmer again. We don't pay too much attention to the solar flares of our sun, because the sun is so luminous that the flares are like a little blip. You barely notice them."
"And remember we're ninety-three million miles from the sun," Richards said. "With a red dwarf, your planet would have to be much closer to the star."
"Right," said Gonzalez. "The luminosity increase would cause temperature spikes on the surface of an orbiting planet. But just as bad would be the increased particle radiation that would result from the flares. On Earth, we get a very mild effect called the aurora borealis. This is where there's a flare on the sun, the particles eventually reach the Earth, they're funneled down the magnetic field to the north and south poles, and we see the aurora borealis as these beautiful lights in the northern hemisphere.
"However, particle radiation has the effect of quickly stripping away the atmosphere, increasing the surface radiation levels, but most importantly, destroying the ozone layer, which we need to protect from radiation. All of this would be deadly for any life on a planet near a red dwarf.
"And then red dwarfs have one more problem: they don't produce much ultraviolet light, which you need early on to build up oxygen in the atmosphere. Scientists believe that the oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere was built up at first by the ultraviolet radiation that broke up water into oxygen and hydrogen. The oxygen was allowed to build up in the atmosphere, while the hydrogen escaped into space, because it's lighter. But you get very little blue light from a red dwarf, so this phenomenon wouldn't occur as rapidly and you wouldn't get the build up of the oxygen you need to sustain life.
"Fortunately, our sun is not only the right mass, but it also emits the right colors-a balance of red and blue. As a matter of fact, if we were orbiting a more massive star, called an F dwarf, there would be much more blue radiation that would build up the oxygen and ozone layer even faster. But any momentary interruption of the ozone layer would subject the planet to an immediate flood of highly intense ultraviolet radiation, which would be disastrous to life.
"Also, the more massive stars don't live as long-that's the major problem. Stars that are even just a little more massive than the sun live only a few billion years. Our sun is expected to last a total of about ten billion years on its main sequence, burning hydrogen steadily, whereas stars just a few tens of percent more massive have considerably less lifetime on the main sequence. And while on the main sequence, they change luminosity much faster. Everything on their lifecycle happens faster."
"Anything else that makes our sun unusual?" I asked.
"Yes, the sun is metal-rich; in other words, it has a higher abundance of heavy elements compared to other stars of its age in this region of the galaxy. As it turns out, the sun's metallicity may be near the golden mean for building Earth-size habitable terrestrial planets.
"And the sun is highly stable, more so than most comparable stars. Its light output only varies by one-tenth of one percent over a full sunspot cycle, which is about eleven years. This prevents wild climate swings on Earth.
"Another way it's anomalous is that the sun's orbit is more nearly circular in the galaxy than most other stars of its age. That helps by keeping us away from the galaxy's dangerous spiral arms. If the sun's orbit were more eccentric, we could be exposed to the kind of galactic dangers I mentioned earlier, such as explosions of supernovae."
I realized after Gonzalez's comments that I would never look at the bejeweled night sky as I had in the past. I used to see stars as being fungible, which is a legal term meaning one is just as good as the other. But now I understood why the vast majority of stars would be automatically ruled out as being capable of supporting life-bearing planets.
It would take a star with the highly unusual properties of our sun_ the right mass, the right light, the right composition, the right distance, the right orbit, the right galaxy, the right location-to nurture living organisms on a circling planet. That makes our sun, and our planet, rare indeed.
As much as I have been fascinated by the sun, I've also frequently stared in wonder at the other dominant celestial body in our sky-the moon. Curious to find out whether this barren, rocky satellite contributes anything to its host planet-other than inspiration for poets and other romantics-I proceeded to turn our discussion toward lunar issues.
Part 2
Best inteligent design evidences i have read so far, copied from the book A case for a Creator OUR LIFE-SUPPORTING MOON
Centuries ago, the dark patches on the moon-low-lying areas that had been flooded with basaltic lava-were thought to be oceans that provided life-giving water to its unseen population. They were called maria, Latin for "seas.";" The name has stuck; to this day, for example, we still refer to Mare Tranquilitatis, or the Sea of Tranquility.
Johannes Kepler, the seventeenth-century astronomer who fanned the flames of the Copernican Revolution, gazed at the moon and believed he discerned caves that were populated by moon people. He even wrote a book in which he fantasized about what their lives might be like.;' A century later, William Herschel, who gained fame by discovering Uranus, thought he made out cities, highways, and pyramids on the lunar landscape."
As scientific knowledge grew, dreams of finding lunar civilizations dissipated. Everyone came to agree that the moon cannot support life. Yet surprising discoveries in recent years have shown the opposite to be true: the moon really does support life-ours! Scientific evidence confirms how this parched, airless satellite actually contributes in unexpected ways to creating a lush and stable environment a quarter of a million miles away on Earth.
When I asked Gonzalez about how the moon helps support life on our planet, the first thing
he brought up was a discovery that only dates back to 1993.
"There was a remarkable finding that the moon actually stabilizes the tilt of the Earth's axis," he said. "The tilt is responsible for our seasons. During the summer, in the northern hemisphere the north pole axis is pointed more toward the sun. Six months later, when the Earth is on the other side of the sun, then the south pole is more pointed toward the sun. With the Earth's tilt at 23.5 degrees, this gives us very mild seasons. So in a very real way, the stability of our climate is attributable to the moon."
"What would happen," I asked, "if the moon were not there?"
"Then our tilt could swing wildly over a large range, resulting in major temperature swings. If our tilt were more like ninety degrees, the north pole would be exposed to the sun for six months while the south pole would be in darkness, then vice-versa. Instead, it varies by only about one and a half degrees-just a klix variation, because the gravity from the moon's orbit keeps it stabilized.
"The moon's large size compared to its host planet is unique in the inner solar system," he continued. "Mercury and Venus have no moons. Mars has two klix moons-probably captured asteroids-and they don't do anything to stabilize the axis of Mars. Its axis is pretty close to Earth's right now, but that's only by coincidence. It actually varies over a huge range. In fact, all three of these planets have chaotic variations in their tilt.
"The moon also helps in another crucial way, which is to increase our tides. The moon contributes sixty percent to the tides; the sun accounts for the other forty percent. Tides serve an important role by flushing out nutrients from the continents to the oceans, which keeps them more nutrient-rich than they otherwise would be. Scientists discovered just a few years ago that the lunar tides also help to keep large-scale ocean circulation going. That's important because the oceans carry a lot of heat, which is necessary to keep the temperature of the higher latitudes relatively mild."
I asked, "What if the moon were larger than it is?"
"If it were more massive and in the same place, the tides would be much too strong, which would create serious difficulties. You see, the moon is slowing down the Earth's rotation. The tides pull on the Earth and slow it down a little bit, while at the same time the moon moves out in its orbit. We can actually measure this. Astronauts left mirrors on the moon and astronomers have been bouncing lasers off them since the early 1970s. They've documented that the moon is moving out in its orbit at 3.82 centimeters a year.
"If the moon were more massive, it would slow down the Earth much more. That would be a problem because if the days became too long, then you could have large temperature differences between day and night."
James Kasting, a professor of geosciences and meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, has confirmed that "Earth's climatic stability is dependent to a large extent on the existence of the moon." Without the moon, he said, the Earth's tilt could "vary chaotically from zero to eighty-five degrees on a time scale of tens of millions of years," with devastating results.
To me, it was amazing enough that the moon "just happens" to be the right size and in the right place to help create a habitable environment for Earth. Again, it was piling on more and more "coincidences" that were making it harder to believe mere chance could be responsible for our life-sustaining biosphere.
But then Kasting made one more intriguing observation that adds yet another mind-blowing improbability to already extraordinary circumstances. "The moon is now generally believed to have formed as a consequence of a glancing collision with a Mars-sized body during the later
stages of the Earth's formation," he said. "If such moon-forming collisions are rare ... habitable planets might be equally rare."
THE DANGERS OF A WATER WORLD
Having explored the moon's contribution to the Earth's life-support system, I decided it was time to focus on our planet itself. I had studied enough geology to know that the Earth is more than just an undifferentiated spinning rock, but that its interior is a dynamic and complex system eight thousand miles in diameter, with a solid iron core surrounded by iron that has been rendered liquid by the heat. At its center, where the pressure is more than three million times greater than at the planet's surface, temperatures soar to nine thousand degrees Fahrenheit.
"What," I said to Gonzalez, "are some of the phenomena on Earth that contribute to its ability to sustain life?"
"First let's talk about the Earth's mass," Gonzalez said. "A terrestrial planet must have a minimum mass to retain an atmosphere. You need an atmosphere for the free exchange of the chemicals of life and to protect inhabitants from cosmic radiation. And you need an oxygen-rich atmosphere to support big-brained creatures like humans. Earth's atmosphere is twenty percent oxygen-just right, it turns out.
"And the planet has to be a minimum size to keep the heat from its interior from being lost too quickly. It's the heat from its radioactive decaying interior that drives the critically important mantle convection inside the Earth. If Earth were smaller, like Mars, it would cool down too quickly; in fact, Mars cooled down and basically is dead."
"What if the Earth were a little more massive than it is?" I asked.
"The bigger the planet, the higher the surface gravity, and the less surface relief between the ocean basins and the mountains," he said. "The rocks at the bases of mountains can only withstand so much weight before they fracture. The higher the surface gravity of a planet, the greater the pull of the gravity on the mountains, and the tendency would be toward creating a smooth sphere.
"Think what would happen if our planet were a smooth sphere. The Earth has a lot of water in its crust. The only reason we're not a water world right now is because we have continents and mountains to rise above it. If you were to smooth out all the land, water would be at a depth of two kilometers. You would have a water world-and a water world is a dead world."
That perplexed me. "If you need water for life," I said, "why doesn't more water mean more life?"
Gonzalez replied, "We have life on Earth because we have the energy-rich sunlit surface of the oceans, which is teeming with mineral nutrients. Tides and weathering wash the nutrients from the continents into the oceans, where they feed organisms. In a water world, many of the life-essential minerals would sink to the bottom. That's the basic problem. Besides, the salt concentration in a water world would be prohibitively high. Life can only tolerate a certain level of saltiness."
"Our oceans and seas are salty," I said. "How does Earth manage to regulate this?"
"We have large, marshy areas along some coasts. Because these are shallow, water comes in from the ocean and evaporates quickly, leaving salt behind. So you get huge salt deposits accumulating on the continents, and the salt content of the ocean doesn't get out of control. But in a water world, eventually the excess salt would saturate the water and settle to the bottom. This would create a super-saturated salt solution that would be inhospitable to life."
Even so, I said, some scientists have theorized that life might exist inside Jupiter's frozen
moon Europa, where a theoretical ocean might be located. "It doesn't sound like you think life would be possible in an environment like that," I said.
"No, I don't think so," he replied. "I don't believe it would be habitable. There would be no way to regulate the salt, so I certainly don't imagine there are any dolphins swimming around in there."
Mountains and continents, then, are crucial for a life-flourishing planet. But where did they come from? I soon learned that they are partly the product of elaborate choreography involving radioactive elements and plate tectonics -absolutely essential ingredients for any planet to sustain a thriving biosphere.
THE ENGINE OF THE EARTH
Scientists over the last several decades have established the surprising centrality of plate tectonics, and the related continental drift, to the sustaining of life on Earth. Continental drift refers to the movement of a dozen or more massive plates in the Earth's lithosphere, which is the outer, rigid shell of the planet. One crucial byproduct of plate tectonics is the development of mountain ranges, which are generally created over long periods of time as the plates collide and buckle.
Scientists are finding that the importance of plate tectonics is difficult to overstate. "It may be," said Ward and Brownlee in Rare Earth, "that plate tectonics is the central requirement for life on a planet."38 Interestingly, they added that "of all the planets and moons in our solar system, plate tectonics is found only on Earth."39 In fact, any heavenly body would need oceans of water as a prerequisite to having plate tectonics, in order to lubricate and facilitate the movement of the plates.
When I asked Gonzalez why plate tectonics is so crucial, he launched into describing an improbable series of highly coordinated natural processes that left me amazed once more at how finely tuned our planet really is.
"Not only does plate tectonics help with the development of continents and mountains, which prevent a water world, but it also drives the Earth's carbon dioxide-rock cycle," he said. "This is critical in regulating the environment through the balancing of greenhouse gases and keeping the temperature of the planet at a livable level.
"You see, greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, absorb infrared energy and help warm the planet. So they're absolutely crucial. The problem is that their concentration in the atmosphere needs to be regulated as the sun slowly brightens. Otherwise, the Earth would not be able to stabilize its surface temperature, which would be disastrous.
"Plate tectonics cycles fragments of the Earth's crust-including limestone, which is made up of calcium, carbon dioxide, and oxygen atoms-down into the mantle. There, the planet's internal heat releases the carbon dioxide, which is then continually vented to the atmosphere through volcanoes. It's quite an elaborate process, but the end result is a kind of thermostat that keeps the greenhouse gases in balance and our surface temperature under control.
"What's driving plate tectonics is the internal heat generated by radioactive isotopes-Potassium-40, Uranium-235, Uranium-238, Thorium-232. These elements deep inside the Earth were originally produced in supernovae, and their production in the galaxy is declining with time because the supernova rate is declining with time. That will limit the production of Earth-like planets in the future, because they won't generate as much internal heat as the Earth does.
"This radioactive decay also helps drive the convection of the liquid iron surrounding the Earth's core, which results in an amazing phenomenon: the creation of a dynamo that actually
generates the planet's magnetic field. The magnetic field is crucial to life on Earth, because it shields us from low-energy cosmic rays. If we didn't have a magnetic shield, there would be more dangerous radiation reaching the atmosphere. Also, solar wind particles would directly interact with the upper atmosphere, stripping it away, especially the molecules of hydrogen and oxygen from water. That would be bad news because water would be lost more quickly.
"Now, remember how I said that plate tectonics helps regulate global temperatures by balancing greenhouse gases? Well, there's also another natural thermostat, called the Earth's albedo. Albedo refers to the proportion of sunlight a planet reflects. The Earth has an especially rich variety of albedo sources-oceans, polar ice caps, continental interiors, including deserts-which is good for regulating the climate. Whatever light isn't reflected by Earth is absorbed, which means the surface gets heated.
"This is self-regulated through one of the Earth's natural feedback mechanisms. To give you an example, some marine algae produce dimethyl sulfide. This helps to build cloud condensation nuclei, or CCN, which are small particles in the atmosphere around which water can condense to form cloud droplets.
"If the ocean gets too warm, then this algae reproduce more quickly and release more dimethyl sulfide, which leads to a greater concentration of CCN and a higher albedo for the marine stratus clouds. Higher cloud albedo, in turn, cools the ocean below, which then reduces the rate at which the algae reproduce. So this provides a natural thermostat.
"On the other hand, Mars lacks oceans, so it doesn't have this albedo component. It only has deserts, small polar caps, and very thin, occasional clouds. So Mars is far less capable of adjusting its albedo as its more eccentric orbit takes it closer and then further from the sun. That's one of the reasons why it experiences larger temperature swings than Earth."
Giant plates of shifting rock that precariously balance greenhouse gases; decaying radioactive isotopes acting as a life-sustaining underground furnace; an internal dynamo that generates a magnetic field which deflects cosmic dangers; precision feedback loops that unite biology and meteorology-I had to pause and marvel at the complex and interconnected processes that orchestrate our planet's environment.
And that was just the beginning. I knew Gonzalez could go on and on about scores of other fine-tuned phenomena. Among them are the elaborate physical processes that resulted in valuable ores being deposited near the planet's surface, enabling them to be efficiently mined for our technological development. Geologist George Brimhall of the University of California at Berkeley has observed:
The creation of ores and their placement close to the Earth's surface are the result of much more than simple geologic chance. Only an exact series of physical and chemical events, occurring in the right environment and sequence and followed by certain climatic conditions, can give rise to a high concentration of these compounds so crucial to the development of civilization and technology.
When I took this together with all of the various "serendipitous" circumstances involving our privileged location in the universe, I was left without a vocabulary to describe my sense of wonder. The suggestion that all of this was based on fortuitous chance had become absurd to me. The tell-tale signs of design are evident from the far reaches of the Milky Way down to the inner core of our planet.
And yet there was more-a whole new dimension of evidence that suggests this astounding world was created, in part, so we could have the adventure of exploring it.
THE POWER OF AN ECLIPSE
The story begins with an unabashed love for solar and lunar eclipses that helped drive a young Guillermo Gonzalez into a life-long study of stellar mysteries.
Mesmerized by the partial eclipses he had witnessed as an amateur astronomer, Gonzalez longed to see the zenith of them all: a total eclipse of the sun, where the moon just barely covers the sun's photosphere. He finally got his chance in 1995. Aware that an eclipse was going to occur on October 24 of that year, he scheduled his research so he could witness the event in northern India, one of the few places where it was going to be fully visible.
"One thing about eclipses," he told me, "is that a seasoned astronomer could be standing next to someone from a remote village, and they would both have tears in their eyes. They're both in awe. At my eclipse camp, as soon as the total phase of the eclipse ended, when you could see the sun's beautiful corona and it was relatively dark, people spontaneously applauded as if rewarding a show. It was just so beautiful!"
Gonzalez photographed the eclipse and made scientific measurements. But he wasn't done. His mind wouldn't let go of an insight: eclipses are better viewed on Earth than they would be from any other planet in our solar system.
"There's a striking convergence of rare properties that allow people on Earth to witness perfect solar eclipses," he said. "There's no law of physics that would necessitate this. In fact, of the nine planets with their more than sixty-three moons in our solar system, the Earth's surface is the best place where observers can witness a total solar eclipse, and that's only possible for the 'near-term' future.
"What's really amazing is that total eclipses are possible because the sun is four hundred times larger than the moon, but it's also four hundred times further away. It's that incredible coincidence that creates a perfect match. Because of this configuration, and because the Earth is the innermost planet with a moon, observers on Earth can discern finer details in the sun's chromosphere and corona than from any other planet, which makes these eclipses scientifically rich.
"What intrigued me," he said, "was that the very time and place where perfect solar eclipses appear in our universe also corresponds to the one time and place where there are observers to see them."
That "coincidence" was so fascinating to me that I asked him to repeat his last statement before we continued. After he did, he added: "What's more, perfect solar eclipses have resulted in important scientific discoveries that would have been difficult if not impossible elsewhere, where eclipses don't happen."
"What discoveries?" I asked.
"I'll give you just three examples," he said. "First, perfect solar eclipses helped us learn about the nature of stars. Using spectroscopes, astronomers learned how the sun's color spectrum is produced, and that data helped them later interpret the spectra of distant stars.
"Second, a perfect solar eclipse in 1919 helped two teams of astronomers confirm the fact that gravity bends light, which was a prediction of Einstein's general theory of relativity. That test was only possible during a total solar eclipse, and it led to general acceptance of Einstein's theory.
"Third, perfect eclipses provided a historical record that has enabled astronomers to calculate the change in the Earth's rotation over the past several thousand years. This enabled us to put ancient calendars on our modem calendar system, which was very significant."
Richards, who had been listening intently, spoke up. "What's mysterious," he said, "is that the
same conditions that give us a habitable planet also make our location so wonderful for scientific measurement and discovery. So we say there's a correlation between habitability and measurability.
"Not only does the specific configuration of the Earth, sun, and moon allow for perfect eclipses, but that same configuration is also vital to sustaining life on Earth. We've already discussed how the size and location of the moon stabilizes our tilt and increases our tides, and how the size of the sun and our distance from it also make life possible here.
"Our main point," he concluded, "is that there's no obvious reason to assume that the very same rare properties that allow for our existence would also provide the best overall setting to make discoveries about the world around us. In fact, we believe that the conditions for making scientific discoveries on Earth are so fine-tuned that you would need a great amount of faith to attribute them to mere chance."
HABITABILITY AND MEASURABILITY
Prompted by the study of perfect solar eclipses, Gonzalez and Richards began to investigate the incredible convergence of habitability and measurability in scores of other settings. They came up with a wide range of examples that merely served to amplify their amazement.
"For example," said Gonzalez, "not only do we inhabit a location in the Milky Way that's fortuitously optimal for life, but our location also happens to provide us with the best overall platform for making a diverse range of discoveries for astronomers and cosmologists. Our location away from the galaxy's center and in the flat plane of the disk provides us with a particularly privileged vantage point for observing both nearby and distant stars.
"We're also in an excellent position to detect the cosmic background radiation, which is critically important because it helped us realize our universe had a beginning in the Big Bang. The background radiation contains invaluable information about the properties of the universe when it was only about three hundred thousand years old. There's no other way of getting that data. And if we were elsewhere in the galaxy, our ability to detect it would have been greatly hindered."
Richards offered a few other illustrations. "The moon stabilizes the Earth's tilt, which gives us a livable climate-and it also consistently preserves the deep snow deposits in the polar regions. These deposits are a tremendously valuable data recorder for scientists," he said.
"By taking core samples from the ice, researchers can gather data going back hundreds of thousands of years. Ice cores can tell us about the history of snowfall, temperatures, winds near the polar regions, and the amount of volcanic dust, methane, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They record the sunspot cycle through variations in the concentration of beryllium-10. They even record the temporary weakening of the Earth's magnetic field forty thousand years ago. In 1979, scientists identified a tentative link between nitrate spikes in an Antarctic ice core with nearby supernovae. By taking deeper cores, it might be possible to catalog all nearby supernovae of the last few hundred thousand years-something that would be otherwise impossible."
Another example of the strange correlation between habitability and measurability, Richards said, is the clarity of our atmosphere. "The metabolisms of higher organisms require from ten to twenty percent oxygen in the atmosphere-which is also the amount needed to facilitate fire, allowing for the development of technology," Richards said. "But it just so happens that the very composition of our atmosphere also gives it transparency, which it wouldn't have if it were rich in carbon-containing atoms, like methane. And a transparent atmosphere allows the science
of astronomy and cosmology to flourish."
"Wait a second," I said. "Doesn't the water vapor in our atmosphere cause cloudiness that can hinder astronomy? That's why putting a telescope in space has been such a breakthrough."
"Actually, astronomers prefer a partly cloudy atmosphere to one that's completely cloudy or always windy and dusty," Gonzalez said. "Besides, we're not saying that every condition of measurability is uniquely and individually optimized on Earth. Our argument depends on what's called an optimal negotiation of competing conditions.
"As Henry Petroski said in his book Invention by Design, `All design involves conflicting objectives and hence compromise, and the best designs will always be those that come up with the best compromise.'`'' To come up with discoveries in a wide range of scientific disciplines, our environment must be a good compromise of competing factors-and we find that it is."
Another interesting connection between habitability and measurability involves plate tectonics. As Gonzalez and Richards explained earlier, plate tectonics is essential to having a livable planet. One byproduct of the movement of these crustal plates is earthquakes, which, in turn, have provided scientists with research data that would otherwise be difficult to obtain.
"Thousands of seismographs all over the planet have measured earthquakes through the years," Richards said. "In the past few decades, scientists have been able to use that data to produce a threedimensional map of the structure of the Earth's interior."
Over and over again, he said, the extraordinary conditions that create a hospitable environment on Earth also happen to make our planet strangely well-suited for viewing, analyzing, and understanding the universe.
"Is that merely some sort of cosmic quirk?" Richards asked. "Are we just lucky? I think wisdom entails the ability to discern the difference between mere coincidence and a meaningful pattern. We have more than a coincidence here. Much more."
THE TRILEMMA OF LIFE
When trying to explain the existence of life, said Gonzalez and Richards, we face a trilemma. One possibility is that some natural necessity, like the laws of physics, inexorably leads to life. Advocates of SETI-the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence-like that possibility. However, more and more scientific discoveries are showing how incredibly improbable it is to marshal the right conditions for life. Many scientists are concluding that intelligent life is, at minimum, far rarer than was once thought. In fact, it may very well be unique to Earth.
The second possible explanation is chance: life is a fluke. Create enough planets circling enough stars and the odds say at least one of them will have life. Brownlee and Ward, who wrote Rare Earth, seem to gravitate toward this explanation.
But there's also a third possibility: life was created. After studying all of the extraordinarily rare circumstances that have contributed to life on Earth, and then overlaying the amazing way in which these conditions also open the door to scientific discoveries, Gonzalez and Richards have landed in this camp.
"To find that we have a universe where the very places where we find observers are also the very best overall places for observing-that's surprising," Richards said. "I see design not just in the rarity of life in the universe, but also in this very pattern of habitability and measurability."
I turned toward Gonzalez. "What's your conclusion?" I asked.
"My conclusion, frankly, is that the universe was designed for observers living in places where they can make scientific discoveries," he replied. "There may be other purposes to the universe, but at least we know that scientific discovery was one of them."
Ever the theologian, Richards jumped back in. "In the Christian tradition, this is quite at home," he said. "Christians have always believed that God testifies to his existence through the book of nature and the book of Scripture. In the nineteenth century, science effectively closed the book of nature. But now, new scientific discoveries are reopening it."
"But if the universe was designed with us in mind, why is it so incredibly vast?" I asked. "There's a lot of empty space out there. Isn't that wasteful and unnecessary?"
"Because the universe was designed for discovery, we need something to discover," Richards replied. "The universe is vast and we're small, but we have access to it. That's what is amazing. We can see background radiation that has come from more than ten billion light years away."
"Plus," added Gonzalez, "we needed supernovae to build up the heavy elements so life-bearing planets could develop. And one particular type of supernovae is incredibly useful as a `standard candle.' Type la supernovae have 'calibratable liminosities' so we can use them to determine distances and to probe the expansion history of the universe. So, again, we see the connection between habitability and measurability."
Richards made one other interesting observation. "Darwin once complained that pollen couldn't have been designed. After all, he said, look at the waste! Millions upon millions of particles are produced, but very, very few are used in the development of flowers.
"However, what he didn't realize was that pollen is one of the most useful tools we have in the scientific exploration of the past, in part, because it can be dated through Carbon 14. When we find pollen in lake sediments and ice cores, we can use it to gauge how old the layered deposits are and what the ancient climate was like.
"Darwin only looked at pollen from a biological standpoint; when we look at the big picture, we see it has another use he never anticipated. Perhaps the same is true in many other instances throughout the universe."
A CHERISHED GROUP OF CREATURES
I pushed my chair back from the table as if I had just consumed a hearty meal. In a sense, I had. Gonzalez and Richards had served me a remarkable feast-fact upon fact, evidence upon evidence, discovery upon discovery that compelled an incredible conclusion. As I sat there and digested the data, my mind turned to the book God and the Astronomers, which I had been reading on the airplane just prior to our interview.
In one chapter, John A. O'Keefe describes how he went away to school at the age of fourteen and began to get into arguments with his roommate about God. These encounters turned him toward astronomy, a field where scientists were beginning to find new and exciting evidence about the possibility of a Creator.
After earning degrees from Harvard and the University of Chicago, O'Keefe went on to become a renowned astronomer and pioneer in space research. The late Eugene Shoemaker called him "the godfather of astrogeology." He was awarded many honors, including the Goddard Space Flight Center's highest award, and is credited with numerous breakthrough discoveries in his scientific research at NASA.
It was the discoveries of astronomy that bolstered O'Keefe's faith in God. He once ran calculations estimating the likelihood of the right conditions for life existing elsewhere. He concluded that if his assumptions were correct, then based on the mathematical probabilities "only one planet in the universe is likely to bear intelligent life. We know of one-the Earth-but it is not certain that there are many others, and perhaps there are no others."
O'Keefe said he would have no theological problem if, indeed, other civilizations existed. That's the position of many Christians.47 God certainly could have created other life-populated planets that the Bible doesn't reveal. But it was the sheer improbability of the coincidences that conspired to create life on Earth that led O'Keefe to this conclusion:
We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cossetted, cherished group of creatures; our Darwinian claim to have done it all ourselves is as ridiculous and as charming as a baby's brave efforts to stand on its own feet and refuse his mother', hand. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.
And for humankind to explore. The findings of Gonzalez and Richards that the cosmos was designed for discovery have added a compelling new dimension to the evidence for a Creator. And frankly, their analysis makes sense.
If God so precisely and carefully and lovingly and amazingly constructed a mind-boggling habitat for his creatures, then it would be natural for him to want them to explore it, to measure it, to investigate it, to appreciate it, to be inspired by it-and ultimately, and most importantly, to find him through it.
apsidejzi wrote: ↑03/04/2022 16:10
Niko nije rekao da ima zivot. Receno je da imaju svi preduslovi a budemo vidjeli za 12 godina kad spuste podmornicu u Evropine okeane hocel naci kakve ribe
nevjerujem.
Takvi kao ti nisu vjerovali ni da je okrugla, pa bi. Nastavicu na drugoj temu vezano za zemlju da ne spamam ovu.
apsidejzi wrote: ↑03/04/2022 18:32
Takvi kao ti nisu vjerovali ni da je okrugla, pa bi. Nastavicu na drugoj temu vezano za zemlju da ne spamam ovu.
kad sam ja to vjerovao da zemlja nije okrugla?
Ma ne ti, al takvi kao ti. Muslimani. Prijasnje generacije. To je taj bog izuzetaka o kojem pricam. Religja evoluira iako ne vjeruje u evoluciju. Kad nauka dokaze jednu stvar oni to prilagode svojoj agendi. Tako je bilo za zemlju. Vjerovali da je ravna pa se ispostavilo da nije i onda kao pronalaze ajete da je u obliku nojevog jajeta. Tako ce biti i za zivot van Zemlje. Pronace neki nacin da opravdaju svoje vjerovanje sve i da se nadje zivot van Zemlje.
Ti danas ne vjerujes a oni koji dodju iza tebe ce vjerovati i nece im biti sporno jer ce naci opravdanje isto kao sto si ti prihvatio da je okrugla iako tvoji prethodnici nisu vjerovali u to. Reagovao sam na tvoj post: "nevjerujem"...
Zanimljivo da su POJEDINCI muslimani morali koristiti LOGIKU umjesto Kur'ana kako bi skontali da je okrugla... Evo jedna idealna slika na tu temu
Ma ne ti, al takvi kao ti. Muslimani. Prijasnje generacije. To je taj bog izuzetaka o kojem pricam. Religja evoluira iako ne vjeruje u evoluciju. Kad nauka dokaze jednu stvar oni to prilagode svojoj agendi. Tako je bilo za zemlju. Vjerovali da je ravna pa se ispostavilo da nije i onda kao pronalaze ajete da je u obliku nojevog jajeta. Tako ce biti i za zivot van Zemlje. Pronace neki nacin da opravdaju svoje vjerovanje sve i da se nadje zivot van Zemlje.
Ti danas ne vjerujes a oni koji dodju iza tebe ce vjerovati i nece im biti sporno jer ce naci opravdanje isto kao sto si ti prihvatio da je okrugla iako tvoji prethodnici nisu vjerovali u to. Reagovao sam na tvoj post: "nevjerujem"...
Zanimljivo da su POJEDINCI muslimani morali koristiti LOGIKU umjesto Kur'ana kako bi skontali da je okrugla... Evo jedna idealna slika na tu temu
Zanimljivo da su POJEDINCI muslimani morali koristiti LOGIKU umjesto Kur'ana kako bi skontali da je okrugla..
vaučer wrote: ↑03/04/2022 14:24
Kao i obično u ovim raspravama, mislim da jednostavno odbijaš prihvatiti veličinu svemira i vremena. Brojke su gotovo neshvatljive. Ako u jednom sustavu, u jednom trenutku, lociraš dva primjera života - možeš slobodno zaključiti da je život, kompleksan, primitivan i sve između - potpuno uobičajena pojava u svemiru. Što naravno potpuno demolira uobražene tvrdnje ljudi koji vjeruju da su centralni aspekt plana stvaranja i da je sve formirano radi njih.
velicina svemira nista ne znaci jer mali milion paramtara treba da se sve poklopi da bi imao kompleksan zivot kao sto ga imamo na zemlji
od tacne tipa zvijezde, nemoze svakakvu zvijezdu imati, mora biti tip G2V, ne moze biti svugdje ni u galakciji, moras biti na tacnoj pozicji u glaakciji, ni predaleko ni preblizu centra, gje bi zvijezde imale utjecaj na putanju objekata suncevog sistema, moras imati mjesec, moras tacan obrtaj oko zemlje imati, moras imati nagib radi sezona da bi se mogla civilizacija baviti agrikulturom, moras imati atmosferu, moras imati tacne doze kisika, moras imati planete poput jupitera i saturna da te stite od asteroida i kometa, moras imati tektonske ploce, moras imati masa toga jos da s esve potrefi da bi zivot bio moguc.
nije to samo hajde daj nek je udaljena planeta tacno od svoje Host star, domacina zvijezde, cak sta vise nesmijes da je u Tidal lockingu, to jeste da je zakljucana rotacija.
Samo si ponovio ono radi čega sam te prozvao. Mali milion parametara je smijurija, da je barem milijarda parametara imao bi neku malenu osnovu za taj argument. 125.000.000.000 galaksija u vidljivom svemiru a u svakoj od njih prosječno 100.000.000.000 zvijezda. Hajde mi opet pričaj kako je jednostavno nemoguće očekivati život negdje drugo jer su desktruktivni primati zaključili da su centar svemira.
velicina svemira nista ne znaci jer mali milion paramtara treba da se sve poklopi da bi imao kompleksan zivot kao sto ga imamo na zemlji
od tacne tipa zvijezde, nemoze svakakvu zvijezdu imati, mora biti tip G2V, ne moze biti svugdje ni u galakciji, moras biti na tacnoj pozicji u glaakciji, ni predaleko ni preblizu centra, gje bi zvijezde imale utjecaj na putanju objekata suncevog sistema, moras imati mjesec, moras tacan obrtaj oko zemlje imati, moras imati nagib radi sezona da bi se mogla civilizacija baviti agrikulturom, moras imati atmosferu, moras imati tacne doze kisika, moras imati planete poput jupitera i saturna da te stite od asteroida i kometa, moras imati tektonske ploce, moras imati masa toga jos da s esve potrefi da bi zivot bio moguc.
nije to samo hajde daj nek je udaljena planeta tacno od svoje Host star, domacina zvijezde, cak sta vise nesmijes da je u Tidal lockingu, to jeste da je zakljucana rotacija.
Samo si ponovio ono radi čega sam te prozvao. Mali milion parametara je smijurija, da je barem milijarda parametara imao bi neku malenu osnovu za taj argument. 125.000.000.000 galaksija u vidljivom svemiru a u svakoj od njih prosječno 100.000.000.000 zvijezda. Hajde mi opet pričaj kako je jednostavno nemoguće očekivati život negdje drugo jer su desktruktivni primati zaključili da su centar svemira.
Jesam. Debata o drugoj Zemlji i kako je neizvjesno da druga zemlja može postojati 'because special'. Tko je rekao da je uopće potrebna druga Zemlja za život? Čak i inteligentan život. Čini mi se da ti fali malo mašte iako je imaš previše. Čak i da tražiš drugu Zemlju, pomnoži broj galaksija s brojem zvijezda i kreni oduzimati procente za svaku 'posebnost'.
vaučer wrote: ↑04/04/2022 13:09
Jesam. Debata o drugoj Zemlji i kako je neizvjesno da druga zemlja može postojati 'because special'. Tko je rekao da je uopće potrebna druga Zemlja za život? Čak i inteligentan život. Čini mi se da ti fali malo mašte iako je imaš previše. Čak i da tražiš drugu Zemlju, pomnoži broj galaksija s brojem zvijezda i kreni oduzimati procente za svaku 'posebnost'.
previse je parametara u igri da bi se mogao zivot kao covjekov uspostaviti na drugim planetama.
slazemo, neslazemo, pusti to, nego de me obraduj jednim dobrim argumentom zasto Bog ne postoji umjesto kruzenja okolo u diskusijama
ja ako kazem Bog postoji, mozes se vjerovati u njegovo postojanje, kreacija ukazuje na to jer bez njega nemozemo objasniti mnogo toga kako tako nesto moze da nastane kroz slucajnosti....tako da je Bog nuzan za logicko objasnjenje, bez njega ostavljeni smo na milost i nemilost slucajnostima a onaj ko se hvata za slucajnosti je poput osobe koja puse vodene balone na tenk da ga zaustavi.
Nismo ni prije 1500+ godina mogli objasniti mnogo toga, i zbog toga i jeste nastao pojam boga-kreacioniste.
Od tada do danas je mnogo toga, za sta se onda smatralo cudom i sl. - razjasnjeno i objasnjeno do u tancine. Isto tako cemo na kraju doci i do odgovora o nasem vlastitom postanku. Sve je samo pitanje vremena.
A kada dodjemo i do tog (sa)znanja, tada ce potreba za vjerovanjem u boga jednostavno nestati.
Doduse, kod tebe vjerovatno nece jer ces se onda presaltati na pitanja "a ko je stvorio i "kalibrirao" svemir/univerzum", pri cemu i dalje neces shvatati da svemir uopste nije "kalibriran" na bilo koji nacin.
Mozda da malo detaljnije proucis pojam "kalibriranja". Ukratko, to znaci da je nesto nastimano fiksno i precizno. Svemir i sva desavanja u njemu, i to samo ona za koja trenutno znamo, to niposto nije. Upravo je potpuno suprotno - tamo je opsti i konstantni haos u kojem smo mi nesto poput nano cestice, potpuo nebitni djelic zrna pijeska koji moze biti unisten svake sekunde.
A, ako kazes "bog postoji", onda ne mozes reci i "moze se vjerovati u njegovo postojanje". Ili - Ili. Ili postoji, ili se moze vjerovati u to?
Ako postoji - izvoli i dokazi.
Ako vjerujes da postoji, kao sto jeste slucaj - to je tvoje licno pravo da vjerujes u sta hoces, ali nije dokaz nicega.
"Kreacija" je samo ta vasa vjerska/religijska teorija. Stvarnih dokaza za nju - nema
I, da - mi jesmo na milost i nemilost slucajnostima.
COVID ti je odlican primjer. Stalna prijetnja nuklearnim ratom i nasim izumiranjem takodjer. Stotine asteroida koji nas mogu pocistiti za par minuta takodjer. Sunce koje nas moze "satrat" u roku par sekundi ako nas pogodi njegova kvalitetna baklja ili solarna oluja.
Mogu ti ovako nabrajati tvoje "kalibriranje" do besvijesti, ali uzalud je jer ti to ne mozes da shvatis onako kako jeste.
Nismo ni prije 1500+ godina mogli objasniti mnogo toga, i zbog toga i jeste nastao pojam boga-kreacioniste.
Od tada do danas je mnogo toga, za sta se onda smatralo cudom i sl. - razjasnjeno i objasnjeno do u tancine. Isto tako cemo na kraju doci i do odgovora o nasem vlastitom postanku. Sve je samo pitanje vremena.
A kada dodjemo i do tog (sa)znanja, tada ce potreba za vjerovanjem u boga jednostavno nestati.
puno je lakse bilo nevjerovati u Boga prije 1500 godina nego sad, znaci to mislim na osonovu sazananja iz nauke, jer prije nauka nije ni blizu bila ko sad, da znamo to sto znamo....ali je tesko bilo nevjerovati u Boga u tim sistemima krscanska evropa i serijat na bliskom istoku pa si odmah donji u tim situacijama dok intelektualno , ja potpuno razumijem....dovoljno da kaze sta ako je univerzum oduvijek , pa nas univerzum nekako stvorio ..bez Boga itd ono jednostavno receno mozda smo sami nastali nekako kroz prirodne procese.
Doduse, kod tebe vjerovatno nece jer ces se onda presaltati na pitanja "a ko je stvorio i "kalibrirao" svemir/univerzum", pri cemu i dalje neces shvatati da svemir uopste nije "kalibriran" na bilo koji nacin.
Mozda da malo detaljnije proucis pojam "kalibriranja". Ukratko, to znaci da je nesto nastimano fiksno i precizno. Svemir i sva desavanja u njemu, i to samo ona za koja trenutno znamo, to niposto nije. Upravo je potpuno suprotno - tamo je opsti i konstantni haos u kojem smo mi nesto poput nano cestice, potpuo nebitni djelic zrna pijeska koji moze biti unisten svake sekunde.
kako ovo nije kalibracija univerzuma?
naucnici kazu, pa navode primjer, kada bi sva zrna sa svih pijesaka sa plazana na svijetu donijeli na jedno mjesto, i to predstavljalo broj, pa mi samo uzeli jedno zrno sa te ogromne hrpe, to je isto kao kad bi oduzeli u tom velikom broju sto ga zovu kvintilion, univerzum bi unisten bio, tolika je preciznost u kalibraciji/podesavanju.
A, ako kazes "bog postoji", onda ne mozes reci i "moze se vjerovati u njegovo postojanje". Ili - Ili. Ili postoji, ili se moze vjerovati u to?
Ako postoji - izvoli i dokazi.
Ako vjerujes da postoji, kao sto jeste slucaj - to je tvoje licno pravo da vjerujes u sta hoces, ali nije dokaz nicega.
"Kreacija" je samo ta vasa vjerska/religijska teorija. Stvarnih dokaza za nju - nema
ne kaze se to tako ako Bog postoji onda mozes vjerovati....ne nego mozes vjerovati na osnovu dokaza iz kreacije, a sta je to inteligentni dizajn.
To je postavljanje dijelova/komponenata sa svrhom u vecoj strukturi.
"Kreacija" je samo ta vasa vjerska/religijska teorija. Stvarnih dokaza za nju - nema
kako nema
dokaza za to imas kad se bolje upoznas sa naukom
pa evo dat cu ti dva primjera
Senzorski okidaci u zivotinjama koji reaguju na toplotu i hladnocu, pa stvaraju bijelo krzno da kamuflira zivotinju u zimskom snijeznom periodu, a kad je toplo stvori se smedje krzno da kamuflira zivotinju pa da lici na kamenje.
ovo je cisti inteligentni dizajn
cak i jaje kad malo bolje analiziramo je dokaz inteligentnog dizajna, pore su tako male u ljudski da moze ulazit kisik a izlazit ugljicni dioksid, a piletu naraste kljunasti zub samo sa svrhom da razbije ljudsku, a i taj kljunasti zub otpadne poslije za nekoliko dana.
Piletu mora u periodu kada se hoce izleci iz ljudske, narasti vratni misic sa kojim ce pritisnuti ljudsku sa tim kljunastim zubom da je otvori...a da ne pricamo o duplim membranama u jajetu da se zrak napravi i pritisak ...sve je to sihronizovano kako bi se pile izglelo.
Da su pore vece ili manje pile bi uginulo, moraju biti ovake velicine, a da nema pora nikako pile bi bilo kao u sarkogafu, umrlo bi ubrzo.
evo tog zuba koji naraste piletu na kljunu samo sa svrhom da razbije ljudsku, i zub otpadne ko djecu mlijezni zubi i to za nekoiko dana poslije izlaska iz ljuske
siguran sam da ti nikad nisi cuo o ovom pilecem zubu a kamoli da pricas o nekom inteligentnom dizajnu jajeta.
I, da - mi jesmo na milost i nemilost slucajnostima.
kad je u pitanju stvaranje niposto, ni u najludjim snovima.
Zar ti mozes da vjerujes da slucajnosti mogu da stvore grad u celiji, sa putevima i svim masinama koje su kodirane i u interakciji jednio sa drugim gdje imaju automatizovane industrije kao elektronski transportni lanac.
Ako mozes onda dajes bozanske osobine , intelektualne osobine slucajnostima koje nemaju razum, svijest o sebi, nemaju moc planiranja, nemaju intelekt da smisle rjesenja itd , intelektualni poraz je kad neko moze da vjeruje da slucajnosti mogu da stvore grad u celiji.
COVID ti je odlican primjer.
sta ovo ima sa slucajnostima pri kreaciji vrsta??? nista
korona virusi postoje milione godina.
uostalom virusi uopste su nuzni za zivot na zemlji, bez virusa bi svi izumrli , covjecanstvo bi nestalo za cas da se uklone svi virusi sa zemlje. zvuci kao paradox ali je tako, nauka nam to kaze.
Stalna prijetnja nuklearnim ratom i nasim izumiranjem takodjer. Stotine asteroida koji nas mogu pocistiti za par minuta takodjer. Sunce koje nas moze "satrat" u roku par sekundi ako nas pogodi njegova kvalitetna baklja ili solarna oluja.
ne pricam o tim slucajnostima, pa ti covejce i ne znas o cemu je govorim ovdje kad to mozes spominjati, ja pricam o slucajnostima mutacija kojima davate moc stvaranja novih vrsta o kakvim ti ratovima i asteroidima pricas
Mogu ti ovako nabrajati tvoje "kalibriranje" do besvijesti, ali uzalud je jer ti to ne mozes da shvatis onako kako jeste.
nemoj svega ti pa ti uopste i nepoznajes moje argumente iako ti se napisu ti pises sasvim nesto drugo.
Tebi baš nedostaje elementarno razumijevanje evolucije ako misliš da je jaje dizajnirano. I po stoti put, nedostaje ti percipiranje vremena u kojem su se razvijali ti npr pileći 'zubi'. Ustvari jedino u uskoj percepciji vremena koju vjernici obično nameću - to može stajati kao dokaz nečega nadnaravnog. Ono, kokoši su iskočile iz prvog božjeg jajeta prije par tisuća godina kad je Bog stvorio svijet i nije li fascinantno kako dođoše opremljene za borbu sa svijetom i ljuskom jajeta. Kad ono mokar prdež od argumenta. Jaje kao prirodni koncept se razvija barem milijardu ipo godina, kroz nebrojene vrste i jedinke. Te kokoši imaju iza sebe ocean eksperimenata u svojim pretcima dinosaurima, čudi me da nemaju Playstation i Netflix u jajima koliko dugo su polirana pokušajima i pogreškama.
