Argument for God's Existence

Al Masihi wrote: The fact that the world is so perfectly made with just the right conditions to let you survive is the only proof you need.

I have to agree that this earth is certainly very very lucky to be.

The chance of it bing like this at random is vanishingly low but then again it would always be so no matter what the specific attributes of the planet were and life would have presumably evolved to those conditions if able to survive at all. Ther will always be a highly unlikely set of numbers that come out of the lottery, them being the same as those on you ticket is the tricky bit.

But;

For a planet to have a stable rotation that does not occaisionally flip over taking a few thousand years and thus having 6 month days and nights whilst it does it you need it to have a big moon. Earth/Moon is basically a double planet. We have not seen any other such planets. Then again we are not capable of detecting such. Still, lucky that.

The amount of water on earth is just about perfect to have not too little, as this would cause the climate to be very prone to extremes and you would have either snowball or boiling conditions easily. Nor too much as if there is not enough exposed land oxygen would build up untill any carbon life on land would simply burn. Lucky that.

The planet needs stable vulcanism. The volcanoes of the earth release carbon dioxide. This is taken up by plants and made into life. The sea creatures make shells and deposit limestone on the sea floor taking the carbon out of circulation. Too much vulcanism and you get Venus, hell hath nothing on Venus. Lucky we have this.

Then you really want plate tectonics. This is the process that keeps building new land and mountains. Without it the world would be erroded away and you would not have land. It also keeps putting fresh nutrients into the world to allow plants to thrive. Lucky that.

Without the spectacularly massive magnetic field that the earth has we would not be able to be on the land. It might be possible for plants to live a few feet below the surface of the sea but... Our magnetic field is stronger than Saturn's. Lucky that.

The presence of Jupiter out in the more distant solar system sweeps up the rain of comets that would be smashing into the earth all the time. We get the odd dinosaur killer but very few because they almost all hit Jupiter. Jupiter has also had a wander into the inner solar system a bit, billions of years ago, and cleared out most of the asteroids which would also pose a massive probelm for us. Lucky that.

When Jupiter wandered into the inner solar system it was being slowed down, and thus it's orbit became closer to the sun, by all those collisions with asteroids. This process has, around lots of other stars, resulted in hot Jupiters orbiting very close to the star. If that had happened here all the inner planets would have been swallowed by Jupiter. The fact that we have Saturn which musty have, at some point, been in lock step with Jupiter and this resulted in both of them being thrown out further into the depths of space is the reason we manaed to get a place to live. Lucky that.

The Jupiter sweeping up thing did most of the asteroids. Not all, it left a very handy asteroid belt of rocky asteroids and ice asteroids for us to use as the perfect resource for mining when we get out there to build space ships. Lucky that.

That we have photosynthisis is a very odd thing. For at least 600 million years the earth had life without it. It seems to have evolved once. A complete freak. Thus we have oxygen freely floating around in the air. This means we can use this rocket fuel (it really is rocket fuel) for our metabolisims. It thus allows us to have the high energy brians needed to type on a keeboard etc. Lucky that.

The chance of anything like us, tool using, highly social, competively intelligent, to eveolve is very low indeed. The dinosaurs had species that did what tigers do, they had species that did what bison do. They had species that climbed around in trees. Never before has there been an ecological niche that is occupied by a species that uses it's intelliegnce to thrive. We use all environments to thrive. Lucky that.

There are lots more.

So personally I think it is reasonable to say that it is likely that something is gardening the earth and humanity.

The fact that the world is so perfectly made with just the right conditions to let you survive is the only proof you need.

Tim the plumber wrote: DavidC wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: DavidC wrote: Evolution is very useful in explaining varieties. It is much less useful in explaining the development of structures. It is also much more useful in explaining why species become extinct than in explaining how new species develop. Evolution is too often used as a dogma which explains everything. It is a scientific concept, and not to be mixed up in arguments inappropiate for science. It seems that many colleges have eliminated the requirement of a course in the philosophy of science from the B.S. degree and many new scientists have lost the connection between science and the rest of knowledge. What are you talking about? The divergence of subpopulations from the rest is exactly what the idea of evolution is about. It explains it extremely well. The study of how diseases change and evolve and thus we get anti-biotic resistant bugs is all about evolution. http://uk.businessinsider.com/examples-of-evolution-happening-right-now-2015-2?r=US&IR=T#bedbugs-are-becoming-a-new-species-of-nightmare-insects-1 Evolution explains varietal subpopulation development well. Species subpopulations are more difficult, and often involve peculiar definitions of a species. i.e. Ring species. The development of new structures by evolution postulates a gradual, linear change where every step is beneficial to adaptation and reproduction. There is a minimal level of complexity needed before an eye can have any useful evolutionary function. I have no idea what ring species are or what you arre saying there. The most simple eye that I know of in abundance in the world would be some species of coral which have the ability to detect light and dark. When a shadow passes over then they retract into their shell so the creature will not be able to eat them. That would be a simple nerve cell that responds to light. Obviously more advanced eyes can do more. Each level of advancement can be shown in nature, snail eyes are better than the light/dark but not by that much up to our eyes and beyond to the eye of an eagle.

Look up ring species. They support your argument, and the fact that you are unaware of them demonstrates a shallow fund of knowledge.

Eagles did not evolve from snails. You are making wildly impossible generalizations. Evolution is nothing more than a dogma to you.

Obviously God created the evolutionary process, but it is not a comprehensive answer for the wide variety of life and non-life.

Tim the plumber wrote: DavidC wrote: Evolution is very useful in explaining varieties. It is much less useful in explaining the development of structures. It is also much more useful in explaining why species become extinct than in explaining how new species develop. Evolution is too often used as a dogma which explains everything. It is a scientific concept, and not to be mixed up in arguments inappropiate for science. It seems that many colleges have eliminated the requirement of a course in the philosophy of science from the B.S. degree and many new scientists have lost the connection between science and the rest of knowledge. What are you talking about? The divergence of subpopulations from the rest is exactly what the idea of evolution is about. It explains it extremely well. The study of how diseases change and evolve and thus we get anti-biotic resistant bugs is all about evolution. http://uk.businessinsider.com/examples-of-evolution-happening-right-now-2015-2?r=US&IR=T#bedbugs-are-becoming-a-new-species-of-nightmare-insects-1

Evolution explains varietal subpopulation development well.

Species subpopulations are more difficult, and often involve peculiar definitions of a species. i.e. Ring species.

The development of new structures by evolution postulates a gradual, linear change where every step is beneficial to adaptation and reproduction. There is a minimal level of complexity needed before an eye can have any useful evolutionary function.