Comments on: The Case for a Creator: A Parade of Horribles, Part I http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/12/cfac-a-parade-of-horribles.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:09:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Thumpalumpacus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/12/cfac-a-parade-of-horribles.html#comment-52662 Thumpalumpacus Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:38:41 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1216#comment-52662 Sorry, D, I was just having an OCD moment. Your analysis looks spot-on to me. Sorry, D, I was just having an OCD moment. Your analysis looks spot-on to me.

]]> By: D http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/12/cfac-a-parade-of-horribles.html#comment-52661 D Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:30:23 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1216#comment-52661 <b>@ Thumpalumpacus (#24):</b> I've been coming at this from the angle that Jupiter's gravitational pull is no more likely to steer an approaching object off of collision course than to steer one onto collision course (after accounting for the rarity of "would collide with Earth but for Jupiter" events in the first place), unless Jupiter eats the object. But Sol's greater gravitational pull makes Jupiter a wash, as the only objects Jupiter is likely to "shield" us from that the Sun could not are objects that would be approaching from the Jupiter side, when the Earth is between Jupiter and the Sun. Even when we look at it from the perspective of gravitational pull, it's only a tiny segment of arc length that's continuously moving around. @ Thumpalumpacus (#24):
I've been coming at this from the angle that Jupiter's gravitational pull is no more likely to steer an approaching object off of collision course than to steer one onto collision course (after accounting for the rarity of "would collide with Earth but for Jupiter" events in the first place), unless Jupiter eats the object. But Sol's greater gravitational pull makes Jupiter a wash, as the only objects Jupiter is likely to "shield" us from that the Sun could not are objects that would be approaching from the Jupiter side, when the Earth is between Jupiter and the Sun. Even when we look at it from the perspective of gravitational pull, it's only a tiny segment of arc length that's continuously moving around.

]]> By: Frank http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/12/cfac-a-parade-of-horribles.html#comment-52649 Frank Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:48:50 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1216#comment-52649 It seems to me that if ours were the only Solar System--we could see nothing beyond it--then the arguments of how the Earth seems specifically designed to permit the evolution of carbon based life, and for its persistence for billions of years, would be impressive evidence of some external benign influence. The argument that we happen to be here so that the chances against us being so heavy would not carry much water. However, there are umpteen gazillion possible solar systems, so that the chances that one or two, here and there, are suitable, seems virtually certain. That being so, the whole argument for a benign influence goes up in smoke. It seems to me that if ours were the only Solar System--we could see nothing beyond it--then the arguments of how the Earth seems specifically designed to permit the evolution of carbon based life, and for its persistence for billions of years, would be impressive evidence of some external benign influence. The argument that we happen to be here so that the chances against us being so heavy would not carry much water.

However, there are umpteen gazillion possible solar systems, so that the chances that one or two, here and there, are suitable, seems virtually certain. That being so, the whole argument for a benign influence goes up in smoke.

]]> By: colluvial http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/12/cfac-a-parade-of-horribles.html#comment-52572 colluvial Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:02:00 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1216#comment-52572 Actually, Strobel's contention that our existence here, against such long odds, is proof of a creator, is invalid right from the beginning. The fact that this one planet, out of probable billions, supports humans is only because it had the necessary conditions. Humans do not <b>have</b> to exist, they simple <b>happened</b> to exist. It did not <b>have</b> to be on this particular planet, it just <b>happened</b> to be. An equivalent situation would be that of considering two pebbles lying on a beach and concluding that because of the extreme odds against the juxtaposition of these particular groups of atoms (considering all the vagaries of cosmic and geologic forces), that they were intentionally placed in that configuration by a creator. And every other pebble, on every other planet, as well. Actually, Strobel's contention that our existence here, against such long odds, is proof of a creator, is invalid right from the beginning. The fact that this one planet, out of probable billions, supports humans is only because it had the necessary conditions. Humans do not have to exist, they simple happened to exist. It did not have to be on this particular planet, it just happened to be. An equivalent situation would be that of considering two pebbles lying on a beach and concluding that because of the extreme odds against the juxtaposition of these particular groups of atoms (considering all the vagaries of cosmic and geologic forces), that they were intentionally placed in that configuration by a creator. And every other pebble, on every other planet, as well.

]]> By: Thumpalumpacus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/12/cfac-a-parade-of-horribles.html#comment-52561 Thumpalumpacus Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:39:12 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1216#comment-52561 D, I think the argument is that Jupiter's gravity does the shielding, not its physical mass. Not that that's any more valid. Just sayin', is all. D, I think the argument is that Jupiter's gravity does the shielding, not its physical mass. Not that that's any more valid. Just sayin', is all.

]]> By: TEP http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/12/cfac-a-parade-of-horribles.html#comment-52508 TEP Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:54:59 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1216#comment-52508 The placement of life on Earth is also wonderful evidence of fine tuning. If we'd been just 15 kilometres lower, we'd have all burnt to death in boiling magma. Had we been 15 kilometres higher, there would be very little atmosphere and high exposure to solar and interstellar radiation. Instead, life just happens to be on the surface, where conditions are just right for its existence. Change the altitude by a small amount either way, and life becomes impossible. Clearly evidence that the location of the biosphere is fine-tuned. It's a miracle, I say! The placement of life on Earth is also wonderful evidence of fine tuning. If we'd been just 15 kilometres lower, we'd have all burnt to death in boiling magma. Had we been 15 kilometres higher, there would be very little atmosphere and high exposure to solar and interstellar radiation. Instead, life just happens to be on the surface, where conditions are just right for its existence. Change the altitude by a small amount either way, and life becomes impossible. Clearly evidence that the location of the biosphere is fine-tuned. It's a miracle, I say!

]]> By: D http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/12/cfac-a-parade-of-horribles.html#comment-52500 D Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:38:38 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1216#comment-52500 Oh, I get it! It's an argument from personal incredulity - albeit a particularly long, detailed, and stupid one - dressed up in highly abused astronomy! Seriously, what arc length of extra-solar approach angles does Jupiter <i>really</i> shield us from? <a href="http://she-who-chatters.blogspot.com/2009/08/abusive-cosmology-anthropic-principle.html" rel="nofollow">Argh!</a> <b>@ Alex, FCD:</b> Another available interpretation of Frank's comment is that "practically alone" simply means that we're so far in space and time from other intelligent life that, unless we learn how to terraform and get off this rock, we'll never be able to contact them because we won't be around long enough. At least, that makes more sense, so I'm giving it to him on the principle of charity. Oh, I get it! It's an argument from personal incredulity - albeit a particularly long, detailed, and stupid one - dressed up in highly abused astronomy! Seriously, what arc length of extra-solar approach angles does Jupiter really shield us from? Argh!

@ Alex, FCD: Another available interpretation of Frank's comment is that "practically alone" simply means that we're so far in space and time from other intelligent life that, unless we learn how to terraform and get off this rock, we'll never be able to contact them because we won't be around long enough. At least, that makes more sense, so I'm giving it to him on the principle of charity.

]]> By: Jennifer http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/12/cfac-a-parade-of-horribles.html#comment-52497 Jennifer Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:49:10 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1216#comment-52497 There's also the point that life will be much more precarious in around a billion years as the Sun gets hotter; and in three or four billion years it will start expanding and either turn Earth into vapor or knock it out of the solar system altogether. Doesn't sound very fine tuned to me. There's also the point that life will be much more precarious in around a billion years as the Sun gets hotter; and in three or four billion years it will start expanding and either turn Earth into vapor or knock it out of the solar system altogether. Doesn't sound very fine tuned to me.

]]> By: ildi http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/12/cfac-a-parade-of-horribles.html#comment-52486 ildi Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:02:30 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1216#comment-52486 Another factor involved in intelligent life evolving on this planet is the we're in the boonies of the galaxy. When a star goes nova, the EM pulse it releases basically kills off any life on any planet within hundreds of light years. Of course, if you watch the Discovery Channel, that's all she wrote when one of the supervolcanoes such as Yellowstone blows, or a tiny asteroid explodes just above the surface of the Earth (a la the Siberioan explosion in 1908), or the Earth's magnetic field flips, or the sun starts generating boatloads of sun spots, or... Another factor involved in intelligent life evolving on this planet is the we're in the boonies of the galaxy. When a star goes nova, the EM pulse it releases basically kills off any life on any planet within hundreds of light years. Of course, if you watch the Discovery Channel, that's all she wrote when one of the supervolcanoes such as Yellowstone blows, or a tiny asteroid explodes just above the surface of the Earth (a la the Siberioan explosion in 1908), or the Earth's magnetic field flips, or the sun starts generating boatloads of sun spots, or...

]]> By: Thumpalumpacus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/12/cfac-a-parade-of-horribles.html#comment-52485 Thumpalumpacus Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:58:59 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1216#comment-52485 I note that they make no mention of the Chicxulub strike that ended the reign of the dinosaurs. Absent that bull's-eye, we would probably not be here at all. I note that they make no mention of the Chicxulub strike that ended the reign of the dinosaurs. Absent that bull's-eye, we would probably not be here at all.

]]> By: pendens proditor http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/12/cfac-a-parade-of-horribles.html#comment-52480 pendens proditor Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:51:45 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1216#comment-52480 Shouldn't a divinely privileged planet be even safer than this one? How about having no seasons, no temperature swings, no earthquakes, no hurricanes, and no ice ages? How about a higher percentage of habitable area for human beings? And why a planet at all? Why not a structure more like a Dyson sphere where we could breed like rabbits forever and never use it all up? Hell, why not build us and the universe in such a way that we could inhabit every square meter of it? Surely an omnipotent being could cook something like this up. It's just like any argument for intelligent design: - In the face of good design: "See! It's obviously good!" - In the face of bad design: "Who are you to judge God's designs? You don't have the God's eye view necessary to see why this is actually good design." Shouldn't a divinely privileged planet be even safer than this one? How about having no seasons, no temperature swings, no earthquakes, no hurricanes, and no ice ages? How about a higher percentage of habitable area for human beings?

And why a planet at all? Why not a structure more like a Dyson sphere where we could breed like rabbits forever and never use it all up? Hell, why not build us and the universe in such a way that we could inhabit every square meter of it? Surely an omnipotent being could cook something like this up.

It's just like any argument for intelligent design:
- In the face of good design: "See! It's obviously good!"
- In the face of bad design: "Who are you to judge God's designs? You don't have the God's eye view necessary to see why this is actually good design."

]]> By: Paul S. http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/12/cfac-a-parade-of-horribles.html#comment-52479 Paul S. Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:30:29 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1216#comment-52479 A great book on this subject is <i>"Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe"</i> by Ward and Brownlee. In a nutshell, their argument is that while <i>microbial life</i> may be abundant throughout the universe that, due to Earth's physical properties, there are a vast number of reasons to believe that <i>complex life</i> is rare elsewhere. A great book on this subject is "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe" by Ward and Brownlee. In a nutshell, their argument is that while microbial life may be abundant throughout the universe that, due to Earth's physical properties, there are a vast number of reasons to believe that complex life is rare elsewhere.

]]>