It is a personal reference of mine that I made for myself because I wanted to. Some of the information below is not stated in the linked video. Some of the information in the video appears wrong and is noted here.
TIME Magazine first ran its cover "IS GOD DEAD" in 1966 on April 8th.
That same year, Carl Sagan announced that there were but two criteria for a planet to be able to support life:
- The right kind of star
- A planet the right distance from that star
There are roughly 1 Octillion planets in existence.
- Octillion is quoted as 1 followed by 24 zeroes. A search shows this number is actually septillion, while octillion is followed by 27 zeroes.*
- At any rate, the number of planets does appear to be estimated at around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or a 1 followed by 24 zeroes.
With Carl Sagan's criteria, roughly septillion planets should be capable of supporting life.
- Septillion is quoted as 1 followed by 21 zeroes. A search shows this number is actually sextillion, while septillion is followed by 24 zeroes (as stated above).*
- I could not find evidence of this claim, but I found evidence that scientists do indeed make estimates about how many planets can sustain life based on these criteria.
- This article: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/8-8-billion-habitable-earth-size-planets-exist-milky-way-f8C11529186 claims that there is a possibility of life on 8.8 billion planets within our galaxy alone, using only the criteria of the two parameters claimed by Sagan all those years ago. Someone should give them a call, let them know what's up.
*These number differences may be attributed to the fact that different regions actually define large numbers differently for whatever stupid reason. The amount of zeroes is correct, the name for the amount of zeroes may be incorrect.
In the 1960s, the program SETI launched, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.
- The program used a vast network of radioscopic signals to search for signs of coded intelligence.
- Contact was a film based on a novel by Carl Sagan in which a fictional SETI finds an intelligent message in the form of a string of prime numbers. This is an example of the coded intelligence the real SETI was searching for.
SETI found completely nothing.
We began to learn that there were far more than two factors necessary to support life.
- The number rose from 10 to 20 to 50 and is finally at more than 200.
- This of course lowered the amount of possible life supporting planets to mere thousands.
- This is in direct contrast to the above referenced link that tried to say there were 8.8 billion possible life supporting planets in our galaxy alone. Someone really needs to give those guys a call.
SETI proponents acknowledged the problem.
- Peter Schenkel wrote an article for Skeptical Inquirer
- I believe this is the article: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/seti_requires_a_skeptical_reappraisal
- He's quoted as saying: "In light of new findings and insights we should quietly admit that the early estimates may no longer be tenable."
- The actual quote appears to be:
"But because of many new insights and results of research in a number of scientific fields, ranging from paleontology, geology, biology to astronomy, I believe this formula is incomplete and must be revised. The early optimistic estimates are no longer tenable. A more realistic and sober view is required."
Today we are at a number of over 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life.
- Each one must be perfectly met or else the entire system falls apart.
- They are also mostly interdependent.
- Ex. A large planet must be within the same solar system to use its gravitational force to pull asteroids away for the life-sustaining planet. (E.g., Jupiter pulls asteroids away from us.)
The odds against life existing in the universe at all is astounding.
- The odds of all 200+ parameters coming into existence by chance and perfectly exact in their attributes is incomprehensibly unlikely.
The video asks the question, "At which point can we finally admit that it is science itself that suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces?"
But that's not all, folks!
The fine tuning necessary for the universe itself to exist at all is more astounding than the fine tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet within that universe.
The four fundamental forces:
- Gravity
- Electromagnetic
- Strong Nuclear
- Weak Nuclear
- The values of these four fundamental forces were determined less than 1,000,000th of a second after the Big Bang.
- Even one minute alteration in the values of any one of these four forces would mean the universe would not have existed at all. Even a little.
- Ex. If the ratio between strong nuclear force and electromagnetic force had been off by the smallest fraction of the most inconceivably small fraction, no stars would have formed at all.
- All of the other parameters are as exact as these four.
- Ex. The odds of the low-entropy state, only one of the many other necessary parameters for the universe to exist, existing by chance alone is one chance in 10^10(123).
"My atheism was greatly shaken by these developments." - Fred Hoyle, Astronomer
Fred Hoyle actually coined the term "Big Bang." He actually disagreed with the theory and attempted to say that the idea that the universe had a beginning was "pseudoscience." He would later come up with the steady-state theory of the universe existing infinitely in an attempt to avoid the inevitable conclusion that all of the actual evidence does lead toward an absolute beginning. Reading through more of his scientific work, he tended to come up with less substantiated theories in order to avoid the evidence-based theories that pointed toward a Creator, in whom he stubbornly wanted to not believe.
"The appearance of design is overwhelming." - Paul Davies, Theoretical Physicist
There is nothing particularly striking about Paul Davies. He has written many books and some papers and seems to be mostly uncontroversial. He appears to be secular.
"Without question the fine tuning argument is the most powerful argument of the other side." - Christopher Hitchens, Professional Atheist(?)
There is far too much to say about Christopher Hitchens. It is worth noting that he was a very influential atheist. Also of note, he is not the only atheist to have absolutely no answer to the obvious fine tuning of the universe - a total of zero of them have.
"The more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here." - Dr. John Lennox, Oxford University, Professor of Mathematics
Dr. John Lennox is actually a Christian apologist, so clearly his quotes and arguments will not be able to be used when speaking to atheists.
Fin~
No comments:
Post a Comment