Recent research indicates that the Moon suffered intense asteroid and meteoroid bombardment impacting its entire surface some 3.9 billion years ago. Because of the Moon’s proximity to Earth and because of Earth’s greater gravity, we can reasonably infer that Earth, too, suffered heavy bombardment at that time— an assault as much as thirty times more intense.

Such bombardment would have wreaked havoc on the planet. It would have reduced Earth’s crust to a molten mass, turning its surface water to vapor. This scenario may explain the lack of marine deposits and rocks dating earlier than 3.9 billion years. Remarkably, this pelting may have played a vital role in preparing Earth for life. Along with the asteroids and meteoroids, comets (which are mostly frozen water) would have rained down in abundance. Once the barrage slowed and surface cooling began, that water would have condensed, contributing to the formation of a huge ocean. (The bombardment may also explain the moisture on Mars about 3.9 billion years ago.)

These findings underscore the miraculous rapidity of life’s origin. We know from the ratios of carbon isotopes that life was abundant on Earth as far back as 3.86 billion years ago.5 Therefore, life must have arisen in the tiny span of 40 million years (3.9 billion minus 3.86 billion = 40 million), probably less. Naturalism offers no explanation for such a rapid appearance of life.

__________________
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice." -Albert Einstein

Naturalistic Macro-Evolution is an unsound theory.

A few questions:

Please state the source for your information. Others may want to read it, too.

As an aside, those interested in the ages of the Earth and moon can see
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

Second question, please explain how you know that rocks earlier than a certain age are not found on the surface of the earth due to asteroid bombardment (as opposed to plate tectonics)?

Also, please explain why you are certain that abiogenesis could not occur in a certain (say 40 million year) period of time.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: aurorae on 2003-03-06 18:35 ]</font>

I don't want to turn this outside of the realm of scientific discussion, but wouldn't it seem logical that if a you're going to invoke a creator for the universe that it might be logical that such a powerful being could set up a universe that would be able to operate without the need for constant tinkering. So that the natural explanation is the way the universe is supposed to work. If you say that a creator could not set up the universe to operate naturally then you would seem to be limiting that creators powers wouldn't you?

My current astronomy book and my Astronomy professor both gave the time of Heavy bombardment as 4.6-4.0 bya. With the late Bombardemnt haing lots of icy comets. So it is not just 3.9. but then again that is just one source.

What is your sorce?

Also why is it so hard to believe that life evolved in only 40 b.y.? We have found simple amino acids and other life necessary chemicals on asteroids and comets. So if some of those hit the earth and survived impact, they could of combined.

Just look at how far we have changed sine the last major extinction event. Drastic changes have happened since then.

P.S. Welcome to the board!! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

Here are just a few of my sources:

References:
Richard A. Kerr, “Beating Up on a Young Earth, and Possibly Life,” Science 290 (2000), 1677.
B. A. Cohen, T. D. Swindle, and D. A. Kring, “Support for the Lunar Cataclysm Hypothesis from Lunar Meteorite Impact Melt Ages,” Science 290 (2000), 1754-56.
Richard A. Kerr, “A Dripping Wet Early Mars Emerging from New Pictures,” Science 290 (2000), 1879-80.
Michael C. Malin and Kenneth S. Edgett, “Sedimentary Rocks of Early Mars,” Science 290 (2000), 1927-37.
S. J. Mojzsis et al., “Evidence for Life on Earth Before 3,800 Million Years Ago,” Nature 384 (1996), 55-59.
Fazale R. Rana, “Origin-of-Life Predictions Face Off: Evolution vs. Biblical Creation,” Facts for Faith 6 (Q2, 2001), 41-47; Fazale R. Rana, “Early Life Remains Complex,” Facts for Faith 7 (Q4, 2001), 7; Hugh Ross, “New Evidence for Life’s Rapid Origin,” Connections 3, no. 1 (2001),

With regards to asteroid bombardment, the Stanford University and NASA Ames researchers determined that as Earth cooled from the moon-forming impact, its surface temperature persisted within a thermophilic window for only 100,000 to 10,000,000 years—bad news for the thermophilic hypothesis—a time too short for life to emerge through natural processes. And, this timeframe likely overestimates the time available for a thermophilic origin-of-life scenario. The moon-forming impactor stands as only one of a large number of objects striking Earth between 4.5 and 3.9 billion years ago. Each collision returned Earth to high temperatures, melting rock on the surface and subsurface and elevating the surface temperature above the maximum temperature survivable by thermophiles.
If, somehow, thermophilic life did emerge prior to 3.9 billion years ago, it could not have persisted beyond that time. At 3.9 billion years ago, Earth experienced an event astronomers call the Late Heavy Bombardment. Gravitational disturbance in the solar system caused a massive number of comets and asteroids to pelt Earth and inner solar system planets. This bombardment, like previous impact events, would have vaporized any oceans and melted surface rock, sterilizing any life present.
Early Earth’s history simply doesn’t allow sufficient time for a thermophilic beginning to life. Researchers looking to extend the time for a natural process origin of life beyond 3.9 billion years meet with failure.

Now, plate tectonics is interesting. Planetary physicist David Stevenson, of the California Institute of Technology, has shown that plate tectonics, oddly enough an essential for life (though earthquakes may be hard for most people to appreciate), need more than just an energy source. They need a lubricant. This added complication to a life-essential physical process represents added support for divine “engineering” of Earth for life.
Earth’s lubricant is its huge quantity of surface water. As ocean plates sink into the mantle (ocean plates are denser than continental plates), they carry water into the mantle and, in doing so, lower the melting point of that mantle. The result is increased volcanic activity and a softening of the mantle layers on which tectonic plates slide. In other words, Earth’s just-right-for-life level of volcanic and plate tectonic activity depends crucially on its enormous—and notably rare—quantity of liquid surface water.
The connection between life’s survival and volcanic and plate tectonic activity is this: such activity distributes life-essential nutrients relatively evenly across Earth’s surface. Erosion alone would concentrate nutrients in Earth’s basins and deplete them everywhere else.
Support for Stevenson’s analysis comes from studies of the planet Venus. Venus has internal heat sources comparable to Earth’s. Yet Venus lacks any observable plate movement. Apparently, the lack of a lubricant accounts for the lack of tectonic activity. The conclusion: Fine-tuning the energy source behind a planet’s plate tectonics and vulcanism is not enough to guarantee life-sustaining conditions. One must also fine-tune the quantity and the quality of the tectonic lubricant.

Despite the importance of abiogenesis to the evolutionary paradigm, origin-of-life researchers have failed to generate any tangible progress towards a strictly materialistic explanation for life’s inception.
Research advances during the last decade increasingly challenge abiogenesis (life from nonlife). Geochemical evidence places the presence of life on Earth at 3.86 billion years ago. The oldest rocks date to 3.9 billion years ago. Prior to this time, Earth existed largely in a molten state, unsuitable for life. Origin-of-life researchers begrudgingly acknowledge that early conditions were not conducive to the formation of prebiotic molecules and, consistent with this conclusion, the geochemical record yields no evidence for a prebiotic soup. Geochemical and fossil records highlight the chemical complexity of Earth’s first life. Taken together, these observations indicate that as soon as the planet could remotely support life, chemically complex life appears.
Even though there is circumstantial evidence apparently favoring an extremophilic beginning to life, other scientific data challenges that explanation. The much-touted discovery of new extremophiles does not necessarily represent new and mounting evidence for a naturalistic origin of life. Significant hurdles still stand in the way—including barriers to psychrophilic (cold-loving microorganisms) and deep biosphere origin scenarios. For now, the focus rests on the challenges specific to a thermophilic origin of life. The thermophilic (heat-loving organisms) origin-of-life scenario faces daunting difficulty on three fronts: (1) natural history, (2) biochemistry, and (3) chemistry

__________________
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice." -Albert Einstein

Naturalistic Macro-Evolution is an unsound theory.

For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values, and these are listed below. In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, in my humble opinion, the indication of divine “fine tuning” seems incontrovertible.

Strong nuclear force constant
Weak nuclear force constant
Gravitational force constant
Electromagnetic force constant
Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
Ratio of proton to electron mass
Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
Expansion rate of the universe
Mass density of the universe
Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
Space energy density of the universe
Entropy level of the universe
Velocity of light
Age of the universe
Uniformity of radiation
Homogeneity of the universe
Average distance between galaxies
Average distance between stars
Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
Fine structure constant
Decay rate of protons
Ground state energy level for helium-4
Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
Decay rate for beryllium-8
Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
Polarity of the water molecule
Epoch for hypernova eruptions
Number and type of hypernova eruptions
Epoch for supernova eruptions
Number and types of supernova eruptions
Epoch for white dwarf binaries
Density of white dwarf binaries
Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
Mass of the neutrino
Decay rates of exotic mass particles
Magnitude of big bang ripples
Size of the relativistic dilation factor
Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
Positive nature of cosmic pressures
Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
Density of quasars
Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
relative abundances of different exotic mass particles

__________________
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice." -Albert Einstein

Naturalistic Macro-Evolution is an unsound theory.

And what values, pray tell, does the Bible predict for any of these numbers, hmmm?

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Oy! more handwaving in one posts than i have seen in a while.

I highly suggest going to this site for your answers.
http://www.talkorigins.org

Specifically here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
and here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html

They can answer it much better than i can.


I would like to say one thing. Water is not rare at all. Especially liquid water here in our part of the solar system.

The earth is in a area of the solar system where it recieves just enougth energy that it can exhist at its triple point.

A triple point is where a certain substance can exhist as a solid, liquid, and gas at the samme time. We see this in water. All water that exhists on the earth is at one of these phases and will switch between the three, albeit at different rates.

So water is not rare at all. It is very prevalent in our part of the solar system. Epsecially as a liquid.

-------------

You still have not answered my point. Even if it was 40 million years between cooling and life, could that not of been enougth for something to evolve?

In my opinion yes. It has taken Humans (HOMO) only a fewe million years to get to what we are today. Why not 40 million for a single cell to develope from primitive Amino acids?

_________________
"Watch out for falling coconuts!".
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2003-03-07 00:43 ]</font>

Truthfully the language here makes it seem like science is tryg as hard as it can to find anything to make science seem right. This is not true, It is the other way around. This is a common theme for Creationists (sorry I.D.'ers) to use this same argumentative tactic.

Again, this is major handwaving. You cliam that a major bit of evidence for the posibility of life in other areas of the solar system (and our origin) is not enought for you and your mystical scientists. Well what is?

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

Good heavy bombardment question...4.0-4.6 billion years as opposed to 3.9-4.0 billion years....I'll check additional sources and get back to you on that one.

As far as your other questions are concerned, naturalistic evolution doesn't allow for life to evolve that quickly or easily...life is complex...very complex.
Prebiotic molecules delivered to Earth via comets and meteorites would not have been properly homochiral (as in "right-handed" or "left-handed") – and proper homochirality is an essential condition for life.
New York University’s Robert Shapiro has further taken the life out of meteorites. Using the chemical classes of compounds found in the Murchinson meteorite, Shapiro showed that side reactions would effectively prevent any prebiotic molecules in the meteorite from ever spontaneously forming life molecules.

__________________
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice." -Albert Einstein

Naturalistic Macro-Evolution is an unsound theory.

First: I am very glad that you are going to further check up on things. You have gained much, much, much more credit to me just for saying that. Follow throught and you will gain even more. Thnak you from the bottom of my heart.

What is Spontanious? Is it like smnaping a finger? A hour? a day? a week? a year? A million years? Define spontinaity.

Molecules like Amino acids and RNA would not form spontaneously, but in steps most likely.

I am not a evolutionary biologist so i really don't know that much about early life. I am currently taking a origins of life in the universe class in my university right now. So i will get back to you as i learn more.

But i do know alot about geography since that is my minor.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2003-03-07 01:04 ]</font>

mystical scientists? now...now...be nice...I admit to being what you call, what is it? an I.D.er? An Old Universe creationist? Whatever....we can throw evidence at each other night and day...and it's the same evidence in many cases. How we interpret that evidence is largely based on our world view...our personal paradigm. Basically, I believe the Big Bang is "good news for God".
Anyway, thanks for responding without sounding too condescending. What I find distasteful about many agnostics/atheists is the way they attempt to imediately ridicule anyone with taking the creation side in the debate. Of course, I have trouble with young Earth creationists as much as with die-hard naturalists. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Darth-Racer: "With regards to asteroid bombardment, the Stanford University and NASA Ames researchers determined that as Earth cooled from the moon-forming impact, its surface temperature persisted within a thermophilic window for only 100,000 to 10,000,000 years...a time too short for life to emerge through natural processes....Life is complex, very complex."

There are several assumptions being made here, I think: First, that the first self-replicating molecules--life, in its simplest form--were in fact thermophilic; if life arose in other ways (in a mesophilic-range clay matrix, for instance) then the "thermophilic window" is moot. Second, that in fact self-replicating molecules could not appear anywhere on the Earth in 100,000 to 10,000,000 years: that is not proven. It could well be, given what we know of the mathematics of replication, that once self-replicating molecules arose anywhere on Earth they would very quickly spread. Third, it is assumed that the earliest life would be as complex as the organisms we know today. I see no reason that should be the case. Viruses survive today with very little in the way of cellular organelles, and it seems reasonable to speculate that the earliest organisms were even simpler.

(This last assumption, incidentally, implies the Argument from Irreducible Complexity. I have never seen that argument proven except by trivial analogy.)

And as mentioned, the anthropic principle makes the Argument from Design rather ineffective: it is obvious that we humans could never have come to be on any world which was not precisely suited for our genesis, eh? No matter if the odds against the formation of a planet like Earth are 10¹⁰-to-1, it is a certainty that humans will find themselves living on an Earthlike planet!

One can imagine a cyanide-breathing metallic crayfish making exactly the same argument about its world: surely the universe has a Designer, for it is exceedingly unlikely that a world suitable for metallic crayfish could occur by chance.

I appreciate your thoughtfulness, but this is well-debated ground we're covering.

[Very shortly later] I take that compliment back: I had not realized that the post of yours which I was quoting was taken verbatim from an essay in Reasons to Believe/Connections, specifically the short essay on plate tectonics by Hugh Ross. You do list Ross's essay as one of your sources, but I was unclear that the full text to which I replied was his and not yours.

[A bit later still] In fact, the post with which you began this topic was taken wholesale from THIS issue of Reasons to Believe/Connections, specifically the first essay, again by Hugh Ross. You left off the last line of the essay: "Naturalism offers no explanation for such a rapid appearance of life. The Bible, on the other hand, does." (emphasis added) And in your later post, the discussion of chirlality of prebiotic molecules was lifted word-for-word from this reprinted report from "Facts for Faith", once more by Hugh Ross (and a co-author, Fazale Rana). From that essay:

"Yet this hope, too, was soon dashed. Before the end of the conference’s second day, researchers had to agree that extraterrestrial delivery could not have supplied all the needed prebiotic molecules.⁶ Moreover, any prebiotic molecules delivered to Earth via comets and meteorites would not have been properly homochiral (as in 'right-handed' or 'left-handed') – and proper homochirality is an essential condition for life.⁷"

Come on, my friend, if you are Hugh Ross, then own up to your authorship. Otherwise, I would suggest you speak in your own voice and use properly attributed quotes to give evidence and support.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2003-03-07 05:21 ]</font>

We could go through point by point your list and discuss whether or not each particular "constant" must have its measured value for there to be life. The Hubble constant varies over time and thus is not "constant".

Your first point was that life appeared so quickly on the Earth (essentially as soon as possible) that a natural explanation is not possible. So my question for you is this: If you say that requires a creator, then I say "fine" but are you insisting that that creator is constantly tinkering with the universe that has been "created". In other words, why isn't it possible that we live in a "created" universe that was set up with a certain set of rules right from the beginning - rules that allow life to form very quickly after the heavy bombardment period ends on a planet? Are you insisting that the creator you imply started all this has to constantly tinker with events as they unfold?

Darth_Racer,

You set up a big list of "constants" as proof of a "Creator".

I see it as a simple tautology: If these numbers were different, there would be no life in the Universe to ponder the existence of the Universe. Since there is life in the Universe, then the Universe must be such that life can exist.

PS This does not mean that I do not believe that there is a God. It is simply irrelevent to the question.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

First of all, there's a distinction to be made between abiogenesis and evolution. That's the first place Darth_Racer shows his ignorance.

Secondly, ID is nothing but hogwash. You can check out why at http://www.talkdesign.org

very sad comment on your part....I thought we could discuss issues without rancor, but, apparently, I was wrong. I don't know where you got the impression that I don't know the difference between evolution and abiogeneis....that shows ignorance on your behalf.

I don't want to be mean, but what do you think they are?

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

Very interesting comments......and, no, I am not Hugh Ross. His expertise far...far exceeds mine. Yes...I did use RTB articles, and showed references....but, not on every portion of the articles. You need to go to one of his skeptic forums they hold each week and and ask him questions or just debate him. RTB enjoys skeptics to challenge them....that's one of the reasons RTB exits.
As for your comprehensive, detailed analysis of the articles, you've still have not shown me anything that will reinforce a naturalistic answer for life or the origins of the universe.

__________________
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice." -Albert Einstein

Naturalistic Macro-Evolution is an unsound theory.

I would expect, Darth_Racer, that JS Princeton got the impression that you do not distinguish between abiogenesis and evolution from your post, which as I noted is not really your own but at least partially plagiarized from Hugh Ross' essays:

"As far as your other questions are concerned, naturalistic evolution doesn't allow for life to evolve that quickly or easily...life is complex...very complex.
Prebiotic molecules delivered to Earth via comets and meteorites would not have been properly homochiral (as in "right-handed" or "left-handed") – and proper homochirality is an essential condition for life.
New York University’s Robert Shapiro has further taken the life out of meteorites. Using the chemical classes of compounds found in the Murchinson meteorite, Shapiro showed that side reactions would effectively prevent any prebiotic molecules in the meteorite from ever spontaneously forming life molecules."

You start out talking about evolution, and then you (or your source) mix it up with abiogenesis. That indicates you don't distinguish clearly between the two concepts.

What I find disturbing, and a bit sad, is your plagiarism. It is very difficult to present a coherent argument relying only on quotes from other people's essays to make your points--if the original essayist, in this case Hugh Ross, did not address a particular point then you are stuck. Not only that, but if you do not understand the essays well enough to rephrase them and support them with evidence of your own, then you risk looking like a mindless parrot.

You're new to this board, so I do not truly know if you have a depth of knowledge that exceeds the essays you've plagiarized. I just dunno! I hope you do decide to enter into the spirit of the board, though, and discuss the issues with as much intellectual honesty as possible. Cheers!

[a bit later] Sorry, you posted while I was banging on my keyboard with all ten thumbs. No, I am not interested in going to a Creationist forum; there are too many more interesting things I want to do.

However...Can you explain why the unwarranted assumptions Ross made about abiogenesis, which I listed, should not be sufficient grounds for dismissing his argument?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2003-03-07 22:10 ]</font>

you make good points....

No, water is not rare, but although water is neccessary for life, it does not guarantee life will exist.

The circumstantial evidence that seems to favor an extremophilic beginning to life is just that...circumstantial...as stated in my earlier post, there are challenges to that speculation. Obviously, more research will done.

As as far as using certain language to fit one's assumptions...you are correct. For naturalists, OUCs, and YECs. I've read articles were it seemed that those with an agnostic viewpoint would not even consider the possibility of Intelligent Design no matter what the research was yielding...and to be fair, I have observed the opposite as well. As I've said earlier, a person navigates through life through his particular world view or paradigm. Everyone can look at the same scientific discoveries and what they say about the universe, and come to completely different positions on origins of the universe. So be it.

__________________
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice." -Albert Einstein

Naturalistic Macro-Evolution is an unsound theory.

My earlier question is genuine. Since you mention world views you're coming close to what I'm asking. I'm not an atheist and have no problem with a person's belief that a creator is responsible for the universe. That falls into the realm of faith and is scientifically untestable. But I've never had a creationist answer this question and perhaps you're ignoring my question because you think its not serious. So can you explain this to me? Since you believe a creator is necessary to explain certain aspects of the universe (quite a list actually from your earlier post), can you explain to my why - in your world view - it is necessary for that creator to constantly be guiding the physical/geological/life events occuring in the universe?

Using your initial example. Yes, life appeared extremely rapidly on Earth. Why must that require intervention? Couldn't it be that the universe was "designed" that way - to develop life quickly on suitable planets?

As an extension of that question - If in your view the development of life on Earth required intervention, then why intervene so soon after the Earth formed and then spend another 4 billion years tinkering around with life before getting around to developing humans?

As I say - I'm trying to understand your world view. It has always mystified me - on intellectual grounds - why a strong belief in a creator requires so many people to deny the discoveries of science.

Darth_Racer: I am just wondering. What version of intelligent design do you believe? Are you more on the conservative side and believe in the physical creation of life on earth, or the more scientific angle in the something (nowhere in any I.D. source have i found do they actually mention a creator, so i don't know what you believe) created the rules of the universe and just sat back and watched?

The latter is much harder to question and theorize and it basically just falls into ochamz razor to decide.

The former is easier to debate. We (science) have ample evidence for the evolution of life and the solar system.

-------------------------

For evolution of early life: We did not immediately start out as nucleated cells. The first protocells were nothing more than a mass of primitive RNA (possible DNA. Still debatable) inside a cell wall.

One theory that i believe on how we got a nucleus is that the nucleus of our DNA was a symbiotic organism that eventually formed as part of our cell. Like our mitochondria.

Eventually after a few million years these cells found the benefits of sexual reproduction (the sharing of genes, not actual sex [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]) and multiplied with more mutations than previously possible.

Next in the evolutionary chain we became multi-celled masses. These masses then specialized into organs, and special cells.

It was not a snap judgment that a cell just decided to become living and human.

---------

P.S. I am still patiently waiting for a definition of Spontaneity. And please in your own words, not a quote or pladurization.

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

The reality is that ID has been well discounted in the website I mentioned. This is not dealt with at all by our dear OPer. Rather, what is said is that since there was a short timeframe of a sterile Earth to an Earth with life that implies design. This is an untenable argument for the following reasons:

1) There is no reason to assume that simple life couldn't form in a short period of time given the right abiotic conditions. We don't know yet what initiated life or have a complete mechanism for abiogenesis. That does not mean that one has to appeal to special or supernatural creation. Such a theory is, in fact, unscientific as it relies not on observational evidence but rather on lack of evidence. It is "God in the gaps". The problem with such theorizing is that as soon as we do end up with evidence one has to either modify the idea or discount the evidence. Modification is no problem in science, but it generally leads to some substantial wringing of hands on the parts of theologians. So invoking "God" as the cause is extremely problematic because science ends up therefore placing limits on theism. Not a pleasant place in which to be.

2) The "complexity" argument is utter baloney. We now have evidence both in simulation and in laboratory data that complexity is an inherent product of random processes given enough starting material. The biosphere gives us the material and our combinatorics is all that is left. While theory isn't at the level of being able to assign priors, we can say that biochemical precursors are really quite common. That's where we are right now and we actually have a coherent abiogenic hypothesis in the form of active RNA that serves as a fairly good model right now for how to explain the dual-nature of nucleic acids. This evidence is not dealt with by any of the so-called "IDers" who instead like to focus their arguments on such ludicrous things as the "mousetrap" or the "eyeball"... both of which are soundly shown to be horribly analyzed by http://www.talkdesign.org .

The hubble constant is a bad example. In Stephen Hawking's discussion of the strong and weak anthropic principles in ABHOT, he cites the strong and weak nuclear forces (if I remember correctly). If either of those are off by a tiny fraction, there wouldn't be any *ATOMS* in the universe, much less any carbon based life.

There are two possibilities I see here, either we hit the jackpot in a cosmic crapshoot, or "someone" set those boundary conditions up with the goal of life arising. And I don't think either is provable because science can't ask WHY?.

So given two unprovables, I choose to believe the second - that someone (God) set up the rules. Now where you go from there is where specific religious beliefs come in. I don't think the Bible has anything at all to say about this - most religions take their beliefs into the realm of science where they cannot compete. I personally believe God doesn't take an active role and his primary act was setting up the conditions for the big bang. I don't think the specific value of C in any way proves creationism as written in the bible, especially in light of all the scientific evidence to the contrary.

But the boundary conditions issue is an intriguing one to me.

editorial comment: Plagarism is for people who can't think for themselves and is largely self-defeating. I abhor it like no other intellectual crime.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: russ_watters on 2003-03-08 11:24 ]</font>

Thank you russ watters! You've expressed my view on the matter quite eloquently. I'm hoping that Darth Racer will take the time to respond to my question and explain why (if this is what Darth believes) the constant intervention is necessary. Nobody that holds that view has ever been able to explain to me why they take that position. I'm genuinely trying to understand the "logic".

Thank you. But I wouldn't hold my breath about Darth Racer - he apparently doesn't think for himself.

Well, theism is one solution, but I tend to feel that Ockham's razor favors the infinite universe possibility. We are naturally going to end up in the place where these constants are just right for life. If it wasn't that way, we wouldn't exist. That's not to say that there isn't a place where such things are that way, we just could never observe it. This is a rather cold alternative to a theistic ideal of creation, but it has the advantage of not being reliant on an unobservable. There is more at the http://www.talkreason.org site specifically on the Anthropic Principle.

I agree with the infinite universes. If you have a infinite number of universes at least one of them will be perfect for life.

This is my opinion. I do not believe that somethoiing created the rules of the universe. I think they are rules and are defined by the properties of the matter. Light goes the speed of light not because something told it it could, but because the energy output of the particle says it could.

Why do we need a something to make the rules of the universe?

Lets taker a example:

All of the heavier (beyond Iron) elements in the universe come from supernovae and novae. These are very destructive processes that destroy whole solar systems and the life on them. Why do that? Why not have the initial heavy elements creeated in the big bang? It is more cunductive for life that way and allows for greater variety asince species that would be extinct can now live.

---------------
If we were created and designed why do we have so many faults. Short life spans. No real biological defenses, no biological offenses. It takes a horrendous amount of time and energy to raise a human to reproductive age. This is not productive and not beneficial if we were created.

Why are there cancer and other genetic diseases if the universe was perfect from the start?

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

Nice comments. It's odd--the anti-evolution and anti-abiogenesis arguments would impress me more if the intelligent-design argument was completely impossible. In other words, if the conditions on earth Earth were completely, obviously unsuitable for life and life is here anyway then I would have to reconsider creationism.

The argument for intelligent design actually weakens the argument for special creation, doesn't it? ID (applied to Earth specifically) requires that terrestrial conditions be Divinely perfect (fine-tuned) for life. If conditions are perfect for life, then by definition conditions are perfect for abiogenesis and evolution--and there is no need to invoke special creation.

By pushing both ID and special creation, apologists like Hugh Ross appear to be shooting the creationism argument in the foot. Er, so to speak.

----

I can imagine a universe in which cohesive, self-replicating magnetic field structures evolve intelligence and ponder the amazing idea that their universe, out of an infinite range of possiblities, just happens to have physical laws which allow magnetic fields to form sentient complexes without the horrible, deadly influence of starlike clumps of matter to disrupt them. Surely the phyisical laws which forbid the clumping of matter must have been designed by a Creator!

But that's just an imaginative exercise on my part. To repeat myself, even if the odds against our particular set of physical laws and constants occurring are 10¹⁰-to-1, because we do exist it is a certainty that we will observe a universe that suits our existence.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2003-03-08 15:56 ]</font>