Hi there!

A muslim website run by creationist Harun Yahya features an article trying to prove God through the orderliness of the solar system. Basically, the author argues that the planets' orbits reflect some remarkable balance:
Relative to its distance to the Sun:
* if a planet's speed is too low, it end up flying into the Sun,
* if it's too high, it gets bounced off the solar system.
Behold! Planets happen to have the good range of value for speed. From this, the author concludes that the solar system couldn't have came about through blind natural causes but is the masterpiece of a Cosmic Intelligence.

http://www.allahexists.com/heavens/heavens_09.php

What do you think of their argument? Does the author know what he is talking about?

So the fact that these objects acquired their orbital velocities from the original accretion disc, is something this moron is incapable of figuring out?

Gravity therefore Allah. Well I'm convinced.

The solar system's been around for 5 billion years. All the planets that had orbits that would send them crashing into the sun have already done so, and all planets with orbits that would send them hurtling outside the solar system have already left the solar system. What is left is the planets that by chance had stable orbits, as only they could persist for so long. It's natural selection in action.

And of course, quite a few Trans-Neptunian Objects are where they are because, oh, that's right, gravitational perturbation of their orbits by Neptune pushed them into new, large diameter orbits ... and pushed others into resonant orbits with Neptune.

termina wrote:What do you think of their argument? Does the author know what he is talking about?

No. The author needs to spend a little time playing with Kerbal Space Program. A body in orbit isn't in some perfect balance-- accelerate it and it goes into a larger orbit, decelerate it and get a smaller orbit.

In the same way that winning lottery tickets are fine-tuned to win the lottery.

So the fact that these objects acquired their orbital velocities from the original accretion disc, is something this moron is incapable of figuring out?

In fact, I have the impression he only sees the result of a process without considering how the latter took place.
Following his reasoning, if you devised a encryption program that can't be modified or reverse engineered, you encrypted a file with it and sent it to team of hackers, challenging them to find the password through chance alone
and they sent back the correct password,
you'd have to conclude they have paranormal cognition ... although you didn't see that the result came about after many random computer-made trials!

termina wrote:

* if a planet's speed is too low, it end up flying into the Sun,

Hence it wouldn't exist in the current solar system.

termina wrote:

* if it's too high, it gets bounced off the solar system.

Hence it wouldn't exist in the current solar system.



Therefore only planets that exist in the current universe have the correct angular velocity. Cart before horse much?

God left a big fucking mess between the Earth and Mars.

(Dirty sod.)

termina wrote:Hi there!

A muslim website run by creationist Harun Yahya features

Ah yes.

The liar, fraud and thief that used stolen images of fishing lures as examples of actual living bugs and doesn't understand that snakes and eels are not the same thing.

termina wrote:an article trying to prove God through the orderliness of the solar system. Basically, the author argues that the planets' orbits reflect some remarkable balance:
Relative to its distance to the Sun:
* if a planet's speed is too low, it end up flying into the Sun,
* if it's too high, it gets bounced off the solar system.
Behold! Planets happen to have the good range of value for speed. From this, the author concludes that the solar system couldn't have came about through blind natural causes but is the masterpiece of a Cosmic Intelligence.

He's an idiot.

He is thinking about planets being placed in orbit and given the appropriate velocities to keep their orbits.

What really happens is a spinning accretion disc coalesces into the star and planets. The planets' initial velocities are due to the spinning of that disc.

So, in order for the planets to be orbiting too fast, the accretion disc would have been spinning that fast and would have itself been flung apart. If too slow, the disc would collapse into the forming star and there would be nothing from which the planets could form.

termina wrote:What do you think of their argument? Does the author know what he is talking about?

Like I said, he is a liar and a fraud.

Science is hard, therefore God.

That particular science isn't all that hard, therefore fraud.

MrFungus420 wrote:He is thinking about planets being placed in orbit and given the appropriate velocities to keep their orbits.

Exactly.
And assuming that the planets were placed in orbit and given the appropriate velocities to keep their orbits, the fact that the planets are in orbit and with the appropriate velocities to keep their orbits proves that they were placed in orbit and given the appropriate velocities to keep their orbits...by Allah obviously, what else?

The other thing he fails to explain is why orderliness requires a person to do the ordering? Or the other side of of the coin, why a world without a god is unable to act according to the laws of physics.

DougC wrote:God left a big fucking mess between the Earth and Mars.

(Dirty sod.)

Not only that. He plonked down seven superfluous planets, and only one capable of sustaining life. Some fine-tuning...

Either we're here

1. Because the universe(including the solar system) was "fine tuned" for life.

or

2. Because the properties of the universe and the solar system just happened to be such that we came to exist and can live here.

How would we observationally distinguish between the two? Well, it's obvious that can't be done because they'd appear exactly the same.

How do we determine which is more probably correct then? By comparing the odds of what we observe (the evidence) on the two different hypotheses(fine-tuning due to chance vs fine-tuning due to design):

The probability life should come to find itself living in a fine-tuned universe (and solar system), even if there is no god, is 100%. Think about it, where else could we live? That is, the universe we observe is 100% what we expect if there was no fine-tuner. Only a universe that had laws exactly such that life could originate and evolve, could produce life.

But, the probability that life should come to find itself living in a universe fine-tuned for life WITH a god is NOT 100%, because a god could just as easily have chosen a scrambled mess of constants but decided to keep life in existence through a continous divine intervention.

Thus on the god-hypothesis there'd be a nonzero chance we'd discover a completely different set of rules governing life and living organisms, instead of what we have now: The same physical rules and constants governing both living and inanimate matter.
Thus, a priori on the observation of fine-tuning alone, an actual fine-tuner is less likely, because what we observe is what we'd expect even without a fine-tuner, because that's the only place we could exist without one! On the other hand, with a god the universe didn't have to be fine-tuned, so what we observe is less likely than 100%. Isn't that brilliant?

Also, what's the simpler explanation that doesn't postulate mysterious unobserved finetuners of universal constants and solar systems? That's right.

That means no amount of "happens to be such that we can exist" is going to make it any more plausible that there's a finetuner, because ANY kind of universe (and solar system) where life can exist and evolve to self-awareness without divine intervention, will by necessity appear to be fine-tuned.

What we observe (fine tuning) is what we'd expect if there wasn't one.

He's picked a bad time to spout such drivel.

They subsequently calculated that free-floating planets are likely to be very common – there are probably double the number of free-floating planets in our galaxy than planets orbiting stars.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/10/lonely-planet-pso-80-light-years-from-earth

Of course it's a bad time...

It's later than the iron-age.

This alleged "fine tuning" seems relatively common in our own galaxy. Who knows about the other hundreds of billions of galaxies ?

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... y-way.html

Analysis by UC Berkeley and University of Hawaii astronomers shows that one in five sun-like stars have potentially habitable, Earth-size planets and a surface temperature conducive to life.

Given that about 20 percent of stars are sun-like, the researchers say, that amounts to several tens of billions of potentially habitable, Earth-size planets in the Milky Way Galaxy.