A fine tuned universe.

[nihilanth]

The universe might in a certain form, but life as we know it, and humans in general would probably not. The universe had to be balanced in such a way that earth formed as it is now and that we and all life as we know it....exists.

You're right.  Life as we know it wouldn't exist. But what's wrong with the idea of life as we don't know it?  Let's say all the unlikely factors that would give me red hair and a mole on my right shoulder fall into place.  If this balance were tilted in another direction, I might have brown hair and a mole on my left shoulder.  No big deal.  Nothing in this suggests I wouldn't exist except for in my particular current state.

(no proof of life on other planets in wich Mars was reciently proven to have never have produced life)

Really?  How was that proven?

The last probe that was sent up took soil samples that showed that there is a toxic substance in the martian soil that would have made life impossible.

That's how it was proven.

[Davedave]

The last probe that was sent up took soil samples that showed that there is a toxic substance in the martian soil that would have made life impossible.

That's how it was proven.

Nihilanth,

This is a remarkably ignorant statement.  You should refrain from saying things like this.  You have no reason to think you possess enough knowledge to make this statement.  You know you have insufficient life sciences background to make such a declaration, so why don't you just back down now?  I'm holding the door open for you to take a step back and recognize that you are simply repeating something you may have heard somewhere else, but that you don't really have the understanding necessary to back it up.  I suggest you take this opportunity.

[Omen]

The last probe that was sent up took soil samples that showed that there is a toxic substance in the martian soil that would have made life impossible.

That's how it was proven.

False.  It found various kinds of salts that would make the soil acidic to most kinds of life, but not all.  Still, even the finding itself doesn't lend to the conclusion,"Would have made life impossible" since such a statement presumes to know what is not known in its entirety.  For example, an entire planet covered in frozen and oxidized regolith did not 'exist' in that state in its entirety.  The shear amount of free oxygen required to accomplish such an event is rather staggering.  Nor did the reoccuring remains of ancient beaches, rivers, and smaller bodies fo waters ( that is liquid water ) simply come into existence pre-formed to make it look like there was once liquid water.  Not to mention the actual water itself, covering as much as the planet as the oxidized soil itself.  Frozen in the top 15 ft of regolith.

[Cyberia]

Hey guys, I don't support the idea of intelligent design.  I agree with all your criticisms of 'fine tuning' COMPLETELY.

[nihilanth]

Oh I did hear the rover found a toxic substance on mars but it in no way disproves life ever existed on mars, since it is a big planet.

Actually it does since the substance is a large part of the martian soil which is mostly the same anyway.

The only evidence we have indicates that life exists on earth only.

[Davedave]

Actually it does since the substance is a large part of the martian soil which is mostly the same anyway.

The only evidence we have indicates that life exists on earth only.

Actually, you're wrong.  You know you know next to nothing about the life sciences, yet you continue to talk.  Why is that?

[nihilanth]

I am wrong? Then show me a place other than earth where life exists. You are all about evidence aren't you?

It is funny that you will say that God does not exist because of the lack of evidence when in reality we have more evidence for the existance of God then the existance of life outside earth. The bible could be a compilation of actual events, yet you dismiss it, yet you try to tell me that life exists beyond our planets atmosphere with absolutely no evidence of any type. Nothing.

You are  a hypocrite DaveDave. No evidence is no evidence. No life beyond our planet, no evidence of it.

[Davedave]

If you can show me where I said there was life on other planets, then I will accept your criticisms.  Until then, though, how's about you answer my questions?  I asked you a simple question.  Why do you think yourself qualified to lecture anyone else on a topic you know very well you have very little understanding of yourself?  What is it about you that compels you to do that?  It's not a very smart thing to do, now, is it?  Talk about things you know nothing about.  Not very smart.  Yet you do it, anyway.  Why is that?  Does it make you feel like a tougher person?  Do you feel like a smarter person when you do that?  I'm honestly curious about why you feel like talking about things you know nothing about is something you need to aggressively do.

[nihilanth]

If you can show me where I said there was life on other planets, then I will accept your criticisms.  Until then, though, how's about you answer my questions?  I asked you a simple question.  Why do you think yourself qualified to lecture anyone else on a topic you know very well you have very little understanding of yourself?  What is it about you that compels you to do that?  It's not a very smart thing to do, now, is it?  Talk about things you know nothing about.  Not very smart.  Yet you do it, anyway.  Why is that?  Does it make you feel like a tougher person?  Do you feel like a smarter person when you do that?  I'm honestly curious about why you feel like talking about things you know nothing about is something you need to aggressively do.

I believe you are the one who said that I was wrong, and I just showed you how wrong you are.

Your defensiveness is quite amusing.

[Ambassador Pony]

If you can show me where I said there was life on other planets, then I will accept your criticisms.  Until then, though, how's about you answer my questions?  I asked you a simple question.  Why do you think yourself qualified to lecture anyone else on a topic you know very well you have very little understanding of yourself?  What is it about you that compels you to do that?  It's not a very smart thing to do, now, is it?  Talk about things you know nothing about.  Not very smart.  Yet you do it, anyway.  Why is that?  Does it make you feel like a tougher person?  Do you feel like a smarter person when you do that?  I'm honestly curious about why you feel like talking about things you know nothing about is something you need to aggressively do.

I believe you are the one who said that I was wrong, and I just showed you how wrong you are.

Your defensiveness is quite amusing.

Nihil,

Why do you atempt to lecture others about something that you KNOW you know next to nothing about? What is it that makes you want to do that? 0

[nihilanth]

Do YOU know how life originated Pony?


If not, then you do not know what you are talking about either.

[Ambassador Pony]

Do YOU know how life originated Pony?


If not, then you do not know what you are talking about either.

Please make an explicit statement that answers my question.

[nihilanth]

Well, since I KNOW what I am talking about, your question makes no sense.

[Ambassador Pony]

Well, since I KNOW what I am talking about, your question makes no sense.

Here is the question again:

Why do you atempt to lecture others about something that you KNOW you know next to nothing about? What is it that makes you want to do that?

So you are stating unequivocally that you know more than a little about the life sciences, enough to justify lecturing others on the current subject.

Thanks for your answer to the first question.

[CosmicScherzo]

The last probe that was sent up took soil samples that showed that there is a toxic substance in the martian soil that would have made life impossible.

That's how it was proven.

So?  There are toxins in Earth's soil, too.  You just have to find them.  Do you claim that the soil on Mars displays chemical uniformity from pole to pole?

[bahramthered]

Bulls*(t.

I saw that same report. Three problems with it declaring life immpossible:

A; One probe, in place found it. No telling how wide spread it is. You can find any number of toxic substance on our planet that would disprove life if you check that one place. We have explored far less than 1% of mars with rovers and chemical analsyis.

B; A and you assume that all life is vunerbale to the same things. There are things in your body that would kill other living things if they where exposed to them. Your body needs them. Heck to a microbe your body is a tasty mix of food and predators (your flesh, chemicals verus your defenses)

C; Even if this stuff was fatal to Martian life there's no proff that it didn't allow life to evolve earlier, and be exterminated by it (you said never had life). You also assume that no life could escape/avoid the toxin (heck even earth bugs can avoid posion)

Lastly your making a lot of assumptionas based on little evidence. You really seem to be grasping at straws here to desperatly prove poorly put togethor points. That's no intended as an insult. Take a deep breath and put your points toghter better.

[ksm]

http://space.newscientist.com/channel/astronomy/cosmology/mg19926673.900-is-our-universe-finetuned-for-life.html

From the article;

The idea that certain aspects of our universe make it uniquely suited to life has never been properly tested, says Fred Adams of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. "You hear people say our universe is fine-tuned for life, that stars are rare and couldn't form if certain things were different," he says. "The truth is, no one has done the calculations." Adams has now rectified that situation and found that it is not unusual for stars to form that can support life.

[Cycle4Fun]

It's actually the BEST argument for a designed universe.

How?  "Tuning" is stated upon a circular premise and is not explained in the 'evidence' cited.  You have to presume its tuned before you begin and that violates the argument itself.  You could no more tell the difference of whether or not we are tuned for it or it is tuned for us, muchless if it is tuned for something completely disconnected from us - such as black holes.

The universe is a fantastic machine at creating black holes, it is fine tuned for black holes.  See what happens when I first presume design/tuning, then arbitrarily presume what its designed for.

Hidden Premise 1. The universe is 'tuned' ( as in designed ) by a god.
Hidden Premise 2. Life existing ( as we know it ) = proof of god
Premise 3. The universe exists
Premise 4. Life exists ( as we know it )
Conclusion 5. There is a god.

How did you know premise 1 or 2? You don't, you offer no explanation.

How do premise 3 and 4 support 1 or 2? They dont.  No explanation is added other then the original hidden premises.

Does it answer the question of evidence? No.

Is the conclusion circular? Obviously.

Cyberia said it was the best argument for a designed universe.  She didn't say it was a good argument!   

[JackWhitehead1]

If the gravitational constant was not the way it is, if it were just a little stronger, or a little weaker, the universe could not exist, nor could life exist.

'Course it would
just in a very different way
A very incredibly different way
If gravity was slightly to the lower or slightly to the higher of what it was now, it would look very different, but why would this mean that nothing could support life?
Of-course it would.
Maybe the force of gravity could have been changed at the point of the big bang to lead to a better life-supporting constant. 

The answer behind gravity's strength lies at the beginning of everything.
Not at the hands of a deity.

[;)]

Without the laws of physics already in place before the universes creation, the universe could not have existed at all.



I propose that the universe was definately created, therefore something great had to have created it.

So I ask you, why is gravity so finely tuned?

Things are not finely tuned to support life.
If everything was so finely tuned, then the universe would be full of living organisms.
We know of what ... one planet? Out of how many celestial objects out there?

And what do you mean by gravity being finely tuned?
The force we experience from gravity is relative, in that it depends upon the gravitational field produced by a massive body, which is dependant upon its mass?
It isn't 'tuned' to one universal value.

[Davedave]

I believe you are the one who said that I was wrong, and I just showed you how wrong you are.

Can you show me where I said there was life on Mars?  Yes or no?  If you can show me where I said that, I'll accept your tirade.  If you can't, you're just shouting into the wind.  However, it continues to be the case that your posts demonstrate very forcefully that you have no reason to think yourself qualified to lecture anyone else about the life sciences, yet you continue to do so.  I think that's a very interesting personality trait.  You know nothing, yet you continue to act as though you do.  You know you know nothing, yet you think of yourself as the sort of person that is right to expound on this topic to others.  How is that?  How do you figure that is right and good?  I can't see it myself, so I'm asking you to help me understand.  Since you know quite well you really don't know that much about the life sciences at all, how did you arrive at the conclusion that you really can and should be talking about this as though you knew something?

[slacker22]

The last probe that was sent up took soil samples that showed that there is a toxic substance in the martian soil that would have made life impossible.

That's how it was proven.

Nihilanth,

This is a remarkably ignorant statement.  You should refrain from saying things like this.  You have no reason to think you possess enough knowledge to make this statement.  You know you have insufficient life sciences background to make such a declaration, so why don't you just back down now?  I'm holding the door open for you to take a step back and recognize that you are simply repeating something you may have heard somewhere else, but that you don't really have the understanding necessary to back it up.  I suggest you take this opportunity.

Your an asswipe.   He provided you with an answer that you didnt like so you called him ignorant.

[Davedave]

Your an asswipe.

And you have lousy grammar.  What's the big deal?  You might be right about me being an asswipe, but that doesn't change the fact that his "answer" was ignorant.  I think it's a fair question.  Why not let him answer for himself?  He knows better than anyone else that he has no particular reason to think himself qualified to lecture others on the life sciences.  Yet, he DOES think he is so qualified.  That's interesting to me, so I asked him about it, and I am earnestly awaiting an honest and straight-forward answer.

[rickymooston]

I've never seen a universe fail to exist because it had a different gravitational constant.  Can you show me such a thing?

This is quotable.

What do you mean by gravitational balance?

Generally that would have to mean some kind of equilibrium but the universe is expanding so ...? But the force pushing it apart could theoretically have been for example balanced by the gravitional force or ...? (I'm b.s.ing a bit but we could have had sufficient conditions for a big crunch to eventually occur.)

[Cyberia]

Gravitational constant:
Stable orbits are only possible with the current value of the gravitational constant.  Stronger and planets spiral inwards, weaker and they spiral outwards.  Both Hawking and Sagan have mentioned this.  It's not a matter of the zone of stability for orbits simply being different, there are NO stable orbits with a different value.

Fine-structure Constant:
Chemical reactions depend on the electromagnetic force.  Stronger and it makes it harder for chemical bonds to be broken, weaker and they break too easily.

Nuclear reactions (atomic stability) depend on the value of the Weak and Strong forces.  Nuclear fusion in stars depend on these.  Hell, matter itself depends on these.  Too much Weak force and ALL atoms spontaneously decompose.

Speed of light:
The speed of light is crucial, even a .001 percent change causes the universe to fly apart, or collapse.  Yes, those are gravitational issues, but gravity (and all forces) travel at the speed of light.  Change this and you are directly altering the range of forces, especially during the Inflationary epoch.


There are 26 dimensionless constants that all appear to need a specific value for the universe to be habitable.  That said, we simply don't know if there is a relationship between these constants that would cause them to take on the current values.  You could also make the case, that of course they have these values.  If they didn't we wouldn't be here to wonder about them.

[xphobe]

The Universe is very poorly tuned for all the things that don't exist but could if it were tuned differently.   Mainly though, it does seem to be well tuned for producing hydrogen.  And beetles.  We live in a hydrogen-beetle universe.

[ksm]

Feeling the need to point this out again.

http://space.newscientist.com/channel/astronomy/cosmology/mg19926673.900-is-our-universe-finetuned-for-life.html

From the article;

The idea that certain aspects of our universe make it uniquely suited to life has never been properly tested, says Fred Adams of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. "You hear people say our universe is fine-tuned for life, that stars are rare and couldn't form if certain things were different," he says. "The truth is, no one has done the calculations." Adams has now rectified that situation and found that it is not unusual for stars to form that can support life.

[Freak]

Gravitational constant:
Stable orbits are only possible with the current value of the gravitational constant.  Stronger and planets spiral inwards, weaker and they spiral outwards.  Both Hawking and Sagan have mentioned this.  It's not a matter of the zone of stability for orbits simply being different, there are NO stable orbits with a different value.

You are sorely mis-informed. Since I've read a lot of Hawking and Sagan, I'm simply going to assume you misunderstood what was written.

[Freak]

BTW, most of the 'fine-tuning' that scientists used to think was necessary, they realize now isn't quite so necessary. For example, you can shift practically all the major constants by up to 25%, and you still end up with a universe where thing like stars form. Let's not jump the gun and use any such ill-formed arguments as evidence of anything just yet, ok.