God’s fine tuning of the world (60 listed here)

I think this information was from Reasons to believe team but I’m not 100% sure.Nasa3

Evidence for the Fine-Tuning of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support

The environmental requirements for life to exist depend quite strongly on the life form in question. The conditions for primitive life to exist, for example, are not nearly so demanding as they are for advanced life. Also, it makes a big difference how active the life form is and how long it remains in its environment. On this basis there are six distinct zones or regions in which life can exist. In order of the broadest to the narrowest they are as follows:

  1. for unicellular, low metabolism life that persists for only a brief time period
  2. for unicellular, low metabolism life that persists for a long time period
  3. for unicellular, high metabolism life that persists for a brief time period
  4. for unicellular, high metabolism life that persists for a long time period
  5. for advanced life that survives for just a brief time period
  6. for advanced life that survives for a long time period

Complicating factors, however, are that unicellular, low metabolism life (extremophiles) typically is more easily subject to radiation damage and it has a low molecular repair rate. The origin of life problem is far more difficult for low metabolism life (H. James Cleaves II and John H. Chambers, “Extremophiles May Be Irrelevant to the Origin of Life,” Astrobiology, 4 (2004), pp. 1-9). The following parameters of a planet, its planetary companions, its moon, its star, and its galaxy must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any kind to exist. References follow the list.

  1. number of stars in the planetary system
    • if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbit of life support planet
    • if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life
  2. parent star mass
    • if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would burn too rapidly
    • if less: range of planet distances for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the life planet’s rotational period; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen
  3. parent star metallicity
    • if too small: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist
    • if too large: radioactivity would be too intense for life; life would be poisoned by heavy element concentrations
  4. parent star color
    • if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient
    • if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient
  5. solar wind
    • if too weak: too many cosmic ray protons reach planet’s troposphere causing too much cloud formation
    • if too strong: too few cosmic ray protons reach planet’s troposphere causing too little cloud formation
  6. parent star luminosity relative to speciation
    • if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop
    • if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop
  7. surface gravity (escape velocity)
    • if stronger: planet’s atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane
    • if weaker: planet’s atmosphere would lose too much water
  8. distance from parent star
    • if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle
    • if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle
  9. inclination of orbit
    • if too great: temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme
  10. orbital eccentricity
    • if too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme
  11. axial tilt
    • if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great
    • if less: surface temperature differences would be too great
  12. rate of change of axial tilt
    • if greater: climatic changes would be too extreme; surface temperature differences would become too extreme
  13. rotation period
    • if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great
    • if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great
  14. rate of change in rotation period
    • if longer:surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained
    • if shorter:surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained
  15. magnetic field
    • if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe; too few cosmic ray protons would reach planet’s troposphere which would inhibit adequate cloud formation
    • if weaker: ozone shield would be inadequately protected from hard stellar and solar radiation
  16. thickness of crust
    • if thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust
    • if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great
  17. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere
    • if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly
    • if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly
  18. carbon dioxide level in atmosphere
    • if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
    • if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis
  19. water vapor level in atmosphere
    • if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
    • if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land
  20. atmospheric electric discharge rate
    • if greater: too much fire destruction would occur
    • if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere
  21. ozone level in atmosphere
    • if greater: surface temperatures would be too low
    • if less: surface temperatures would be too high; there would be too much uv radiation at the surface
  22. oxygen quantity in atmosphere
    • if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily
    • if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe
  23. nitrogen quantity in atmosphere
    • if greater: too much buffering of oxygen for advanced animal respiration; too much nitrogen fixation for support of diverse plant species
    • if less: too little buffering of oxygen for advanced animal respiration; too little nitrogen fixation for support of diverse plant species
  24. oceans-to-continents ratio
    • if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited
    • if smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited
  25. soil mineralization
    • if too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited
    • if too nutrient rich: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited
  26. gravitational interaction with a moon
    • if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe
    • if less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficent; magnetic field would be too weak
  27. Jupiter distance
    • if greater: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth
    • if less: Earth’s orbit would become unstable
  28. Jupiter mass
    • if greater: Earth’s orbit would become unstable
    • if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth
  29. drift in major planet distances
    • if greater: Earth’s orbit would become unstable
    • if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth
  30. major planet eccentricities
    • if greater: orbit of life supportable planet would be pulled out of life support zone
  31. major planet orbital instabilities
    • if greater: orbit of life supportable planet would be pulled out of life support zone
  32. atmospheric pressure
    • if too small: liquid water will evaporate too easily and condense too infrequently; weather and climate variation would be too extreme; lungs will not function
    • if too large: liquid water will not evaporate easily enough for land life; insufficient sunlight reaches planetary surface; insufficient uv radiation reaches planetary surface; insufficient climate and weather variation; lungs will not function
  33. atmospheric transparency
    • if smaller: insufficient range of wavelengths of solar radiation reaches planetary surface
    • if greater: too broad a range of wavelengths of solar radiation reaches planetary surface
  34. magnitude and duration of sunspot cycle
    • if smaller or shorter: insufficient variation in climate and weather
    • if greater or longer: variation in climate and weather would be too much
  35. chlorine quantity in atmosphere
    • if smaller: erosion rates, acidity of rivers, lakes, and soils, and certain metabolic rates would be insufficient for most life forms
    • if greater: erosion rates, acidity of rivers, lakes, and soils, and certain metabolic rates would be too high for most life forms
  36. iron quantity in oceans and soils
    • if smaller: quantity and diversity of life would be too limited for support of advanced life; if very small, no life would be possible
    • if larger: iron poisoning of at least advanced life would result
  37. tropospheric ozone quantity
    • if smaller: insufficient cleansing of biochemical smogs would result
    • if larger: respiratory failure of advanced animals, reduced crop yields, and destruction of ozone-sensitive species would result
  38. stratospheric ozone quantity
    • if smaller: too much uv radiation reaches planet’s surface causing skin cancers and reduced plant growth
    • if larger: too little uv radiation reaches planet’s surface causing reduced plant growth and insufficient vitamin production for animals
  39. mesospheric ozone quantity
    • if smaller: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases so disturbed as to upset relative abundances of life essential gases in lowe atmosphere
    • if greater: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases so disturbed as to upset relative abundances of life essential gases in lower atmosphere
  40. quantity and extent of forest and grass fires
    • if smaller: growth inhibitors in the soils would accumulate; soil nitrification would be insufficient; insufficient charcoal production for adequate soil water retention and absorption of certain growth inhibitors
    • if greater: too many plant and animal life forms would be destroyed
  41. quantity of soil sulfur
    • if smaller: plants will become deficient in certain proteins and die
    • if larger: plants will die from sulfur toxins; acidity of water and soil will become too great for life; nitrogen cycles will be disturbed
  42. biomass to comet infall ratio
    • if smaller: greenhouse gases accumulate, triggering runaway surface temperature increase
    • if larger: greenhouse gases decline, triggering a runaway freezing
  43. phosphorus and iron absorption by banded iron formations
    • if smaller: overproduction of cyanobacteria would have consumed too much carbon dioxide and released too much oxygen into Earth’s atmosphere thereby overcompensating for the increase in the Sun’s luminosity (too much reduction in atmospheric greenhouse efficiency)
    • if larger: underproduction of cyanobacteria would have consumed too little carbon dioxide and released too little oxygen into Earth’s atmosphere thereby undercomsating for the increase in the Sun’s luminosity (too little reduction in atmospheric greenhouse efficiency)
  44. quantity of aerobic photoheterotrophic bacteria
    • if smaller: inadequate recycling of both organic and inorganic carbon in the oceans
  45. average rainfall precipitation
    • if too small: inadequate water supplies for land-based life; inadequate erosion of land masses to sustain the carbonate-silicate cycle.; inadequate erosion to sustain certain species of ocean life that are vital for the existence of all life
    • if too large: too much erosion of land masses which upsets the carbonate-silicate cycle and hastens the extinction of many species of life that are vital for the existence of all life
  46. variation and timing of average rainfall precipitation
    • if too small or at the wrong time: erosion rates that upset the carbonate-silicate cycle and fail to adjust adequately the planet’s atmosphere for the increase in the sun’s luminosity
    • if too large or at the wrong time: erosion rates that upset the carbonate-silicate cycle and fail to adjust the planet’s atmosphere for the increase in the sun’s luminosity
  47. water absorption capacity of planet’s lower mantle
    • if too low: too much water on planet’s surface; no continental land masses; too little plate tectonic activity; carbonate-silicate cycle disrupted
    • if too high: too little water on planet’s surface; too little plate tectonic activity; carbonate-silicate cycle disrupted
  48. star rotation rate
    • if too slow: too weak of a magnetic field resulting in not enough protection from cosmic rays for the life-support planet
    • if too fast: too much chromospheric emission causing radiation problems for the life-support planet
  49. rate of nearby gamma ray bursts
    • if too low: insufficient mass extinctions of life to create new habitats for more advanced species
    • if too high: too many mass extinctions of life for the maintenance of long-lived species
  50. aerosol particle density emitted from forests
    • if too low: too little cloud condensation which reduces rainfall, lowers the albedo (planetary reflectivity), and disturbs climates on a global scale
    • if too high: too much cloud condensation which increases rainfall, raises the albedo (planetary reflectivity), and disturbs climate on a global scale; too much smog
  51. air turbulence in troposphere
    • if too low: inadequate formation of water droplets
    • if too great: rainfall distribution will be too uneven
  52. quantity of phytoplankton
    • if too low; inadequate production of molecular oxygen and inadequate production of maritime sulfate aerosols (cloud condensation nuclei); inadequate consumption of carbon dioxide
    • if too great: too much cooling of sea surface waters and possibly too much reduction of ozone quantity in lower stratosphere; too much consumption of carbon dioxide
  53. quantity of iodocarbon-emitting marine organisms
    • if too low: inadequate marine cloud cover; inadequate water cycling
    • if too great: too much marine cloud cover; too much cooling of Earth’s surface
  54. mantle plume production
    • if too low: inadequate volcanic and island production rate
    • if too great: too much destruction and atmospheric disturbance from volcanic eruptions
  55. parent star magnetic field
    • if too low: solar wind and solar magnetosphere will not be adequate to thwart a significant amount of cosmic rays
    • if too great: too high of an x-ray flux will be generated
  56. size of the carbon sink in the deep mantle of the planet
    • if too small: carbon dioxide level in planet’s atmosphere will be too high
    • if too large: carbon dioxide level in planet’s atmosphere will be too low; biomass will be too small
  57. ratio of dual water molecules, (H2O)2, to single water molecules, H2O, in the troposphere
    • if too low: inadequate raindrop formation; inadequate rainfall
    • if too high: too uneven of a distribution of rainfall over planet’s surface
  58. triggering of El Nino events by explosive volcanic eruptions
    • if too seldom: uneven rainfall distribution over continental land masses
    • if too frequent: uneven rainfall distribution over continental land masses; too much destruction by the volcanic events; drop in mean global surface temperature
  59. efficiency of flows of silicate melt, hypersaline hydrothermal fluids, and hydrothermal vapors in the upper crust
    • if too low: inadequate crystallization and precipitation of concentrated metal ores that can be exploited by intelligent life to launch civilization and technology
    • if too high: crustal environment becomes too unstable for the maintenance of civilization
  60. water absorption by planet’s mantle
    • if too low: mantle will be too viscous and, thus, mantle convection will not be vigorous enough to drive plate tectonics at the precise level to compensate for changes in star’s luminosity
    • if too high: mantle will not be viscous enough and, thus, mantle convection will be too vigorous resulting in too high of a level of plate tectonic activity to perfectly compensate for changes in star’s luminosity
Advertisements

About defendtheword

To contact us please send e-mail to defend.theword@ntlworld.com
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Bible, Christianity, Discernment, Evangelism, News, Photography, Religion, Videos. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to God’s fine tuning of the world (60 listed here)

  1. Az says:

    Az: How many millions of billions of planets are there out there? It’s obvious that life (as we know it) would form on the planet that is suited for it. If EVERY planet in the universe was suitable for life, then you might have a point, but they aren’t.
    It’s a bit like rolling 10 dice and getting 10 sixes. If you do it once, yeah, that’s interesting. But if you did it 60 million times then it’s a little less impressive.
    The earth is, as far as we’re currently aware, the 10 sixes on 10 dice, but the rest of the universe are all the other combinations and we’re nothing special per say.

    Defend the Word: Thank you very much for your interesting reply. What you are saying chances are that there is a life out there.
    That is very intriguing to me, does that mean that proportionally calculated due to obvious fine-tuning of the life on the earth you could just as categorically state that chances are that God was involved in the creation of the universe and has put everything in place that life could exist in the universe.

    Secondly be careful not to avoid the main question on fine tuning by simply trying to misdirect our attention away from the main point, which is that even if there are possibilities of other worlds out there in the big unknown we could not conclude that chance plus time was the originator of it. It is same old story of saying no it was not God it was aliens who created the life on earth. My question would simply be OK could you please clarify who was responsible for alien life raise from simple to the complex.

    You see that is simply an attempt to dismiss the obvious that we do not have the answer and when cornered then making up one would be just as good.
    I like thinking in the terms of probability and likelihood but that is precisely the reason that I have to conclude that “chance plus time” is simply not enough you need physical laws that will react in the way that is conducive to life.

    You need precise order of these laws for example think about this if the universe was expanding too fast or too slowly all the basic elements at the start of the big bang elements that are created at the very beginning would not have been of the right substance to permit life creation .

    So any assertion of the multitude of earth like planets is simply inconsequential when looking at the issue of interconnectivity of laws and co-dependency of systems that are simply put unbreakable. We know that from observing the world around us. Your comment reminds me of recent claim by famous British physicist who has made the claim that “We don’t need God as laws of gravity would do all the necessary work needed in order to start up life.” Nothing could be further from the truth, simply put note that Gravity in our mind works consistently but that consistency may have been pre-programed at the beginning and by all likelihood was put in place by the very hands of God.

    What strikes me again and again as people come to this blog and attempt to give an answer to the complexity of life that they are simply driven by the ideology and not hard evidence.

    Guess what, things like inhabited planets and parallel universes are not been documented in fact great body of evidence is out there to suggest that even if there are such things we are way too limited both with the space, time and technology in order to be able to ever find this information. So it looks like we are simply going to have to live it at the most basic of elements of human study.

    We call it faith, yes that’s right faith that the experiments we undertake mean what we hope they do when we start interpreting that data, and secondly faith that we are able to judge correctly that we have covered all eventuality. But that is not the end, we also need faith in our own ability to be unbiased and open to the truth, in other words go to the place wherever the evidence may take us.

    So the question is both for me and you, am I finding my way out of the tight spot or an I truly searching for the answer.

    Kind regards

    Defend the Word

  2. Az: How many millions of billions of planets are there out there? It’s obvious that life (as we know it) would form on the planet that is suited for it. If EVERY planet in the universe was suitable for life, then you might have a point, but they aren’t.
    It’s a bit like rolling 10 dice and getting 10 sixes. If you do it once, yeah, that’s interesting. But if you did it 60 million times then it’s a little less impressive.
    The earth is, as far as we’re currently aware, the 10 sixes on 10 dice, but the rest of the universe are all the other combinations and we’re nothing special per say.

    Defend the Word: Thank you very much for your interesting reply. What you are saying chances are that there is a life out there.
    That is very intriguing to me, does that mean that proportionally calculated due to obvious fine-tuning of the life on the earth you could just as categorically state that chances are that God was involved in the creation of the universe and has put everything in place that life could exist in the universe.

    Secondly be careful not to avoid the main question on fine tuning by simply trying to misdirect our attention away from the main point, which is that even if there are possibilities of other worlds out there in the big unknown we could not conclude that chance plus time was the originator of it. It is same old story of saying no it was not God it was aliens who created the life on earth. My question would simply be OK could you please clarify who was responsible for alien life raise from simple to the complex.

    You see that is simply an attempt to dismiss the obvious that we do not have the answer and when cornered then making up one would be just as good.
    I like thinking in the terms of probability and likelihood but that is precisely the reason that I have to conclude that “chance plus time” is simply not enough you need physical laws that will react in the way that is conducive to life.

    You need precise order of these laws for example think about this if the universe was expanding too fast or too slowly all the basic elements at the start of the big bang elements that are created at the very beginning would not have been of the right substance to permit life creation .

    So any assertion of the multitude of earth like planets is simply inconsequential when looking at the issue of interconnectivity of laws and co-dependency of systems that are simply put unbreakable. We know that from observing the world around us. Your comment reminds me of recent claim by famous British physicist who has made the claim that “We don’t need God as laws of gravity would do all the necessary work needed in order to start up life.” Nothing could be further from the truth, simply put note that Gravity in our mind works consistently but that consistency may have been pre-programed at the beginning and by all likelihood was put in place by the very hands of God.

    What strikes me again and again as people come to this blog and attempt to give an answer to the complexity of life that they are simply driven by the ideology and not hard evidence.

    Guess what, things like inhabited planets and parallel universes are not been documented in fact great body of evidence is out there to suggest that even if there are such things we are way too limited both with the space, time and technology in order to be able to ever find this information. So it looks like we are simply going to have to live it at the most basic of elements of human study.

    We call it faith, yes that’s right faith that the experiments we undertake mean what we hope they do when we start interpreting that data, and secondly faith that we are able to judge correctly that we have covered all eventuality. But that is not the end, we also need faith in our own ability to be unbiased and open to the truth, in other words go to the place wherever the evidence may take us.

    So the question is both for me and you, am I finding my way out of the tight spot or an I truly searching for the answer.

    Kind regards

    Defend the Word

  3. Az says:

    Az: Perhaps I can clarify.

    You see it as fine tuning, because “we’re here, and we couldn’t be here unless XYZ, therefore something has fine tuned it for us”. From this, the conclusion is something created the world for US, specifically, with us in mind.

    I, however, see it as “we’re here because, for us, XYZ are as they are. We couldn’t be here thinking about how lucky we are, if XYZ wasn’t the case.” There are 2 possible conclusions from this, either that life can only happen with XYZ (and, since we have XYZ, we have life)… OR… life is more robust then we imagine or know, and it can happen in XYZ or ABC, we just happen to be XYZ.
    Personally I think it’s a bit of both. I think life is far far more robust then we tend to give it credit, just look on earth at where life lives, including the newly found arsenic based life form.
    But also, I think there’s still going to be some specifics life can’t avoid. For instance, I highly doubt life could be found in a deep vacuum without a source of energy (ie, a star) close by.

    Defend the Word: Thanks very much for your input, however there are few “minor” problems, Christians are aware and accept the conclusion that life does exist in forms that have been previously thought impossible. However if one is accepting evolution as most people who claim the robustness of life do then you have conundrum that robustness of life could have evolved and does not start like that. In fact all observations that we have in analysing basic elements of life in their most primal forms have huge difficulties in starting up their engines in from elements to life forms.

    And this is the problem when you have people who try to reconstruct things and work backwards without giving serious consideration to what they are missing. It comes down to our desires to disprove the proponents of the opposing theory but not giving serious consideration to the original statement.

    Note that the excerpts given here are all scientifically accepted and are not made up for our amusement but are tested and merited comments that deserve serious consideration. Note that atheists like Dawkins also accept this but his comments are that in the infinite number of universes (Which he cannot demonstrate scientifically) possibility of one universe that is just suitable is how he avoids this conundrum.
    I am always surprised how quick people are at give their opinion without considering fully all aspects and implications of what they are saying.

    Kind regards

    Defend the Word

  4. Az: Perhaps I can clarify.

    You see it as fine tuning, because “we’re here, and we couldn’t be here unless XYZ, therefore something has fine tuned it for us”. From this, the conclusion is something created the world for US, specifically, with us in mind.

    I, however, see it as “we’re here because, for us, XYZ are as they are. We couldn’t be here thinking about how lucky we are, if XYZ wasn’t the case.” There are 2 possible conclusions from this, either that life can only happen with XYZ (and, since we have XYZ, we have life)… OR… life is more robust then we imagine or know, and it can happen in XYZ or ABC, we just happen to be XYZ.
    Personally I think it’s a bit of both. I think life is far far more robust then we tend to give it credit, just look on earth at where life lives, including the newly found arsenic based life form.
    But also, I think there’s still going to be some specifics life can’t avoid. For instance, I highly doubt life could be found in a deep vacuum without a source of energy (ie, a star) close by.

    Defend the Word: Thanks very much for your input, however there are few “minor” problems, Christians are aware and accept the conclusion that life does exist in forms that have been previously thought impossible. However if one is accepting evolution as most people who claim the robustness of life do then you have conundrum that robustness of life could have evolved and does not start like that. In fact all observations that we have in analysing basic elements of life in their most primal forms have huge difficulties in starting up their engines in from elements to life forms.

    And this is the problem when you have people who try to reconstruct things and work backwards without giving serious consideration to what they are missing. It comes down to our desires to disprove the proponents of the opposing theory but not giving serious consideration to the original statement.

    Note that the excerpts given here are all scientifically accepted and are not made up for our amusement but are tested and merited comments that deserve serious consideration. Note that atheists like Dawkins also accept this but his comments are that in the infinite number of universes (Which he cannot demonstrate scientifically) possibility of one universe that is just suitable is how he avoids this conundrum.
    I am always surprised how quick people are at give their opinion without considering fully all aspects and implications of what they are saying.

    Kind regards

    Defend the Word

  5. steve gray says:

    “references follow the list?” Where? With no references this list is totally useless. If they all came from Ross they have very low plausibility because he bends facts to the breaking point to “prove” the Bible.

  6. Not sure if I understand your disagreement, are you saying that these statements are not factual, have you got any “evidence” that contradicts this list? This is generally accepted by all established scientists there is nothing controversial here. I would thing the fact that these are listed here for your inspection would be clear example of transparency and readiness to take on anyone who wants to give rebuttal to the contrary.

    Kind regards

    Defend the Word

Comments are closed.