Re: What's the Problem?


Jim Spaza wrote:
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-07-27, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-07-25, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-07-24, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Noelie S. Alito wrote:
[piggybacking]
Cheezits wrote:
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Cheezits wrote:
<snippishness>

Then there are the odd coincidences about life on this planet.

Oh geez, NOT AGAIN! You haven't even grasped one thing I've said! "Odd
coincidences", my ***. There are probably billions of planets in this
galaxy alone. That a few, or even just one, has the Earth's conditions
is to be expected from chance alone.

This
includes the specifics of just the right gravity,

Life processes depend primarily on biochemical mechanisms, to
which gravity is a fairly insignificant influence. Even megafauna
have survived or thrived in variable-G environments. Doubling
our planets gravity might affect the max size of apatosaurs, but
the distribution of species in a high-G ecosystem would still be
diverse.

OK. Yet, increase gravity up to 100 times and see how well they do.

Blue whales weigh more than 100,000kg, about 25x the weight of the typical
African bull elephant. Since bouyancy isn't dependent on the value of the
gravitational constant, it would appear that organisms (even large, complex
ones with sophisticated brains) would be feasible even in environments with
high gravitational loads.

That would be mostly true except that high gravitational loads would
prevent much planetary mass from ever forming in the first place, not
to mention the effect on land-based ecosystems which would themselves
greatly affect the oceans.

Really? In what way? Be specific.

Increase gravity too much and the underground topographic flow of
groundwater is probably not going to make it back to the surface and
evaporate to be rained back into the oceans nor into the oceans
directly.

On what basis do you make this assertion? I can't imagine a confusion of
physics that would make this a sensible interpretation of what would happen.

In many areas of the planet today, underground water seeps up to the
surface under pressure which is only a little stronger than gravity.
Increase gravity some and that underground water stays underground.

It's not that difficult to understand. Underground pressure increases
and forces water to the surface. But, we don't see water shooting out
of the ground (except in the book of Genesis)

Apparently you've never been to, or heard of, Yellowstone.

everywhere. We see slow
seepage. That's all. Slow seepage means that the pressure is just a
little more than gravity. Increase gravity and that won't be any
seepage.


This affects water levels and salinity.


And consider that these life forms would have to exist in nature, not a
well-design centrifuge.

Also, consider the geological consequences with a change in gravity, a
geology which these life forms would depend on.

What's the problem?

The problem is the theory that random processes created everything from
nothing.

I'm sorry, you were talking about "geological consequences". What
geological consequences would a change in gravity cause, and what would be
the problem for the development of life forms?

Remember, be specific.

I don't have a problem with stating that a change in gravity would have
geological consequences, like the groundwater problem mentioned above.

You don't have any problem stating it, but you aren't apparently inhibited
by a complete lack of knowledge or understanding.

And your scientific refute is? Nothing. Just a mischaracterization of
the messenger.


There is no problem there. You asked me what the problem was. It all
goes back to random chance creating everything.

Then perhaps you should actually stick with that argument, rather than
trying to argue something else. You're no likelier to make any sense, but
you would at least be able to keep your story straight.

blah,blah,blah.


Excuse me, from a quantum vacuum where mass and energy
conveniently comes in and out of existence.

This is not a geological consequence. Don't try to change the subject.

earth's rotation,


Earth's rotation time has changed by well more than 1% and
life has been able to adapt and thrive, thankyouverymuch.

Yes. Now change it by 20% or more.

Do you actually have some reason to believe that this would present
a serious problem for the existence of life?

Yes.

http://novan.com/earth.htm

Does this seem like a reasonable scientific article to you? Really?

Yes.

I can only conclude you're an imbecile.

Wrong conclusion caused by endless hours spent in a flourescent-lit
office reading articles by people who think that they know what they're
talking about. Then add in a hours everyday spent in Usenetland where
science evidence is just something that the other guy has to show and
pithy, useless replies are plentiful.


Hint: it's balderdash. Nobody sane thinks that planetary rings are
generated by fast rotation of planetary bodies. Nobody.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/coriolis.html

Nothing there at all about faster rotation causing difficulties for life.

What do you think will happen if the weather patterns are changed by a
changing coriolis effect?

Weather patterns change all the time. Life adapts. It's has huge meteor
impacts that tossed dust over the whole planet. It has tolerated ice
ages. Huge variations in temperature that occur every year in many locations.
Drought. Flood.

Wave that hand and dismiss the particulars of the question.


Look at just one bad storm can do to a small country's crops for a
year.

They harm crops, and may do a number on your house, but most wildlife barely
notices.

Ha! You must have been hiding in your flourescent-lit office when the
recent tsunamis hit in Asia.

Which species had 50% of their population affected by the 12/26/04
tsunami? If you can't name any, I think it's fair to say that most
wildlife barely noticed.



Look at what a cooler-than-average winter does to Florida's orange
production. And that is just a little bad weather.

We were talking about life, not crops. It's sad that you have to pay 20% more
for your orange juice, but the planet doesn't really care.



http://web.austin.utexas.edu/edcannon/astro-climate.htm

This is just a list of links. Nothing there at all about faster
rotation causing difficulties for life.

It's all linked to weather, ecosystems, and climates.

Well, that is at least true, if somewhat vacuous. I was expected something
that would support your ideas. There is nothing there, except some vague
handwaving on your part.

I learned from the best handwavers in this forum.


They don't go into the changes in life directly. But, what do you
think would happen if global wind patterns shifted drastically?
Goodness.

They shift drastically all the time. We call that "weather". Happens
all the time. Life hasn't had much of a problem adapting to it.

No, drastically is when all wind speeds increase by 10%, not just some
local storm.


Change it a little too much either way and weather patterns and the
cooling/heating cycle get really fouled up (that's a scientific term).

If that's "the scientific term", I'd hesitate to ask what the "totally
made up bull*** term" is.

But of course it isn't the scientific term: it's your completely made up
bull***.

earth's "wobble" along its poles,


The earth wobbles (precesses) on about a 23,000 year cycle.
I don't see how even halving or doubling this rate could make
megafauna any more improbable.

I was thinking about the change in the tilt of the axis every year.
Increase the angle and the poles would significantly melt. Increase
the period (now annual) and the overall agricultural production would
be seriously diminuished.

And? If different things happened, the earth would be different. Maybe
it would even have prevented humanity from existing, in which case you and
I wouldn't be having this conversation. Is this suprising in any way?

No. It's just suprising that we're here given the permutations and
possibilities of a uninhabitable potential earths.

If we weren't here, we wouldn't be here. That's really not that surprising.
What would be surprising would be to wake up on a planet surrounded by
burning lava and poisonous gas. THAT would be far more convincing evidence
of special creation.

It's funny that you mention burning lava and poisonous gas. Many
people will indeed one day wake up in that kind of environment.

Nope. They will just be worm food.

Actually, the Bible says that worms will be eating you at the time.


That is why there are so many people trying to tell you and others
about the need for God's forgiveness before you die.

Sorry, I don't serve the monster you do.

You really are tempting God, aren't you? It's like you want Him, if He
exists, to kick your tail just to prove He exists.

Apparently this is something your omnipotent god cannot do.



earth's revolution around the sun,


In what way would a 200-day year make megafauna improbable?

Megafauna, probably none.


and earth's distance from the sun.


The earth's elliptical orbit changes its distance from the
sun by 3% e-v-e-r-y year!

Now change it to 10% and you wouldn't need a heat lamp to get your
megafauna to grow nice and big.

Jupiter's moons have reasonable amounts of liquid water. It would appear
that the potential for reasonable ecosystems to exist is fairly broad, and
dependent on details which are more complex than simply distance. It is
pretty widely accepted that rather large amounts of liquid water once existed
on Mars.

What scientific evidence, not assertion, is there that water is enough
to allow life?

Life seems to exist in every earthly ecosystem where liquid water exists.

That's not science.

It's simply a fact.

Prove it with objective, repeatable, testable, observable science.
Oooppsss. Ya can't. And you accuse me of handwaving. Hypocritically
weird. I expected better.

Science does not deal in proof. We cannot prove the hypothesis that
every terrestrial environment that includes liquid water also contains
life. However, it is easily falsified by finding a terrestrial
environment that includes liquid water that does NOT contain life. Can
you name one?



Maybe it's just coincidence. Maybe there is quantum vacuum in every
little bit of water which just pops life into existence. :-)

You wouldn't know a quantum vacuum from a Hoover vacuum.

Sure I do. The Hoover vacuum is real. BAM!!! You fell right into
that one.


And what would that do to the water
cycle? It's more than just one plant in a laboratory under controlled
conditions.



Change any by, say, 1% and life
beyond that of a microbe becomes highly, highly improbable.

What planet are you from?

This one, silly.

Noelie has shown that normal variation of the parameters you suggested
are well over 1%, and yet life adapts.

OK. Show me a 10% change.

So, you really didn't have any justification for claiming that a 1%
modifcation represented a significant challenge to the creation of life
forms. In fact, you were wrong. Completely wrong.

I don't know where you live, but in my part of the country we just topped 111
degrees, but in the winter, we occasionally get frost. Yet there are vital
diverse biosystems at work as far as the eye can see.

Would you like to try again?

There wouldn't be unless everything was just right.

Must be nice to be unencumbered by an excess of intellect.

You got beaten up in high school, didn't you? Why all the anger and
personal attacks anyway? It's usually the sign that you've given up
the argument and are on the defensive.

Talking to incorrigible liars can do that to some people.



Yes, sort of like the conditions that probably exist on millions of other
planets. So what?

Millions of planets are probably less erratic than ours. :-)

Probably is not science. Probably is guessing.

Now, you may say that life could exist in other forms, forms which can
handle a change in any of these earthly conditions, forms which might
have evolved IF the earth had been formed differently. OK. Where is
the evidence that life can exist as such?

We'll know if we ever run across it.

<cough> Life on this planet survives variability of temperature,
ambient radiation, pressure, salinity, moisture, pH, and gravity.
The critical requirement seems to be a minimum level of water
stored somewhere in the environment (even the fog-zones of the
"Mars-like" Atacama Desert support vegetation and small critters).


<snip>

Noelie
--
Give me some carbon and some water to mix it in
(oh, and maybe some other stuff),
and I will populate the world!

Only if you are God, which you ain't. Also, go create your own carbon
and water from nothing, if you can.

Wow. I'm sure you think that's clever.

Mark

No more clever than the man with such a high opinion of his
intelligence and ability that he thinks life can be created by his
hands with the bare minimum of material.

Like most creationists, you seem to be as well versed in humor as you are
in science.

Such a man truly believes that nothing is beyond his grasp. He has
become a god unto himself.

I see. Making up a God is something you reserve solely for yourself.

Mark


.