Earth is the odd planet out.

[Missourian]

From Sky and Telescope:

Genesis Finding: Earth Has a Problem​

September 8, 2004, was supposed to be a day of triumph for solar-system exploration. That's when a sealed capsule from NASA's Genesis spacecraft returned to Earth with samples of the solar wind carefully collected in space.

But when a malfunction caused the capsule to plummet from the sky onto Utah's high desert, it initially seemed that both the craft and any hope of salvaging its results were shattered.

Luckily, many of the delicate collectors inside survived the plunge...

{Link to the expunged sections of this article}

...Finally, the results are in. At the 39th annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston, Texas, Kevin McKeegan (University of California, Los Angeles) announced that the Sun has proportionately far more oxygen-16, relative to oxygen-17 and -18, than is present in terrestrial seawater. There's a serious mismatch. Instead, the solar ratios follow the same trend seen in primitive meteorites.

Suddenly, Earth is the odd planet out. "We had little idea what the Sun's ratios should be," McKeegan told me after his presentation. Now, he says, there's "no plausible model" to make Earth with the oxygen ratios it exhibits. "It's always been a challenge to supply Earth with the water it has. And now we're wondering how it got the rocks it has."

That view was echoed by Robert Clayton, a University of Chicago cosmochemist who's recognized as the grand master of oxygen-isotope research. "The CAIs [primitive meteorites — particularly in tiny nuggets called calcium-aluminum inclusions] were thought to be the anomaly and we were normal," Clayton explained. "But this result has turned that idea upside down."

{There is more...please use link above}

 

[AVG-JOE]

Interesting article... to many uses of various derivatives of the concept behind the word 'assume' to be conclusive, but interesting nonetheless.

-Joe

 

[Old Rocks]

Very interesting article. I'll be looking for more on this.

 

[strollingbones]

the sky is gonna be pretty monday night

Spectacular Sky Scene Monday Evening - Yahoo! News

 

[Mad Scientist]

I always laugh at my fellow Scientists who are frustrated that they can't understand the Universe and how it works. Well here's a clue:

A person with an I.Q. of 150-200 will never understand what God with an infinite I.Q. created. It's great to explore and enjoy all of Gods wonders but don't let it drive you insane, just accept it as it is.

 

[glockmail]

From Sky and Telescope:

Gee, its almost as if it was designed to support life.

 

[glockmail]

the sky is gonna be pretty monday night

Spectacular Sky Scene Monday Evening - Yahoo! News

Looks like it will be cold again, make up for all that damn rain today.

 

[tigerbob]

From Sky and Telescope:

Perhaps Douglas Adams was right.

Maybe Earth is a supercomputer designed by the Magratheans and commissioned by mice with the intention of finding out the meaning of the question behind the answer to the ultimate question of Life, The Universe and Everything (the answer, 42, being already known).

I always suspected it.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't think what is stated in the article is entirely accurate, namely the assumption that the solar wind reflects the isotope make up of the sun.

Scientists have already hypothesized that isotopes would separate by mass in the sun, with the lighter isotopes moving outward. Those are the ones that would be dominant in the solar wind. This measurement seems to support that idea.

As for the argument that everything we can't understand has to be an indication of 'design,' that is simply nonsense. There are a multitude of things we didn't understand in the past that we understand much better now, and someone thousands of years ago saying an eclipse had to be an act of God wasn't much different then than those people who now point to anything we don't have an answer for an assign it to God.

 

[glockmail]

....
As for the argument that everything we can't understand has to be an indication of 'design,' that is simply nonsense. There are a multitude of things we didn't understand in the past that we understand much better now, and someone thousands of years ago saying an eclipse had to be an act of God wasn't much different then than those people who now point to anything we don't have an answer for an assign it to God.

I understand very well how a car engine works, but I am still fairly certain that it was designed.

 

[Steerpike]

I understand very well how a car engine works, but I am still fairly certain that it was designed.

If you think that is a pertinent argument you are making a mistake. Of course we know car engines and any man-made objects were designed, as we designed them and therefore have direct evidence that they were designed. We don't have that for the universe.

And the analogy is further weakened because an analogy is only as strong as the two things being compared, and the universe and a car engine are not remotely similar.

 

[glockmail]

If you think that is a pertinent argument you are making a mistake. Of course we know car engines and any man-made objects were designed, as we designed them and therefore have direct evidence that they were designed. We don't have that for the universe.

And the analogy is further weakened because an analogy is only as strong as the two things being compared, and the universe and a car engine are not remotely similar.

I think it is you who have made the mistake. First of all, there is plenty of evidence that the universe was designed. Some just choose to ignore it and most are too ignorant to understand it. Second, an analogy that compares a simple object with a complex one is no weaker or stronger that one that compares like objects. You've produced a logical fallacy.

 

[Steerpike]

I think it is you who have made the mistake. First of all, there is plenty of evidence that the universe was designed. Some just choose to ignore it and most are too ignorant to understand it. Second, an analogy that compares a simple object with a complex one is no weaker or stronger that one that compares like objects. You've produced a logical fallacy.

Glockmail you don't understand logic, apparently, nor do you have good reading comprehension skills.

For example - I never said there wasn't evidence for design. I said we don't have the same kind of evidence that we have for a car engine, which we designed ourselves. That is incontrovertibly true.

Second, I didn't product a logical fallacy. If you think I did, perhaps you would care to name the logical fallacy? In fact, there was no fallacy. Neither the analogy you used nor my comments to it constituted a logical fallacy. But your analogy is weak, and I pointed that out. In fact, a car engine itself is a static thing (and by car engine itself I mean the physical structure, not any combustion going on). That makes it entirely unlike the universe and a very poor choice for an analogy. Also, the argument from design leads to an infinite regression, which you probably already know.

In any event, you can better respond if you've accurately read what I posted, which again was simply to say we don't have the same KIND of evidence of design for the universe as for an engine, namely, the direct evidence of having been the designer. You can't dispute this reasonably.

And you should be aware that a simple disagreement between two people doesn't constitute a logical fallacy. Throwing that phrase out there in a response doesn't make your weak argument any stronger.

 

[glockmail]

Glockmail you don't understand logic, apparently, nor do you have good reading comprehension skills.

For example - I never said there wasn't evidence for design. I said we don't have the same kind of evidence that we have for a car engine, which we designed ourselves. That is incontrovertibly true.

Second, I didn't product a logical fallacy. If you think I did, perhaps you would care to name the logical fallacy? In fact, there was no fallacy. Neither the analogy you used nor my comments to it constituted a logical fallacy. But your analogy is weak, and I pointed that out. In fact, a car engine itself is a static thing (and by car engine itself I mean the physical structure, not any combustion going on). That makes it entirely unlike the universe and a very poor choice for an analogy. Also, the argument from design leads to an infinite regression, which you probably already know.

In any event, you can better respond if you've accurately read what I posted, which again was simply to say we don't have the same KIND of evidence of design for the universe as for an engine, namely, the direct evidence of having been the designer. You can't dispute this reasonably.

And you should be aware that a simple disagreement between two people doesn't constitute a logical fallacy. Throwing that phrase out there in a response doesn't make your weak argument any stronger.

Your logical fallacy is too simple for the books, at least mine: “something is true because I say it is so”, i.e. :”an analogy is only as strong as the two things being compared.”
Secondly, I assert that there are many kinds of evidence that support the theory that the universe was designed, including the written claim of its inventor, exactly the same kind of evidence to supports the theory that the car engine was designed.

 

[Steerpike]

Your logical fallacy is too simple for the books, at least mine: “something is true because I say it is so”, i.e. :”an analogy is only as strong as the two things being compared.”
Secondly, I assert that there are many kinds of evidence that support the theory that the universe was designed, including the written claim of its inventor, exactly the same kind of evidence to supports the theory that the car engine was designed.

If you claim the evidence of the two are EXACTLY the same, then you are being intellectually dishonest and there's no point in continuing. No reasonably person could make that claim, and if the evidence were exactly the same kind of evidence there would be no doubt anywhere as to the design of the universe.

As for analogies only being as strong as the two items being analogized, that is self-evident and if you don't think that's true I again have to conclude you are being purposefully dishonest (because of course if you don't believe it then you must believe that a good analogy could be made between two things no matter how dissimilar they are, which should be patently false to anyone).

Since you didn't approach this with the intent of having an honest discussion, I'll move on to the next person. I'm enjoy all sorts of opposing viewpoints, but I don't care for dishonesty and gamesmanship such as you are exhibiting. Sorry.

 

[Old Rocks]

Your logical fallacy is too simple for the books, at least mine: “something is true because I say it is so”, i.e. :”an analogy is only as strong as the two things being compared.”
Secondly, I assert that there are many kinds of evidence that support the theory that the universe was designed, including the written claim of its inventor, exactly the same kind of evidence to supports the theory that the car engine was designed.

Whose written claim? You can assert anything you like. At present I would say that our knowledge of the universe in not complete enough to make any claims concerning designs or who might have made the design.

Now if you wish to make the claim on the basis of faith, that is a whole differant ballgame. But differentiate the two. Religion is not science.

 

[PeterS]

I think it is you who have made the mistake. First of all, there is plenty of evidence that the universe was designed.

In science this would be where you supply the evidence...

 

[glockmail]

If you claim the evidence of the two are EXACTLY the same, then you are being intellectually dishonest and there's no point in continuing. No reasonably person could make that claim, and if the evidence were exactly the same kind of evidence there would be no doubt anywhere as to the design of the universe.

As for analogies only being as strong as the two items being analogized, that is self-evident and if you don't think that's true I again have to conclude you are being purposefully dishonest (because of course if you don't believe it then you must believe that a good analogy could be made between two things no matter how dissimilar they are, which should be patently false to anyone).

Since you didn't approach this with the intent of having an honest discussion, I'll move on to the next person. I'm enjoy all sorts of opposing viewpoints, but I don't care for dishonesty and gamesmanship such as you are exhibiting. Sorry.

Here's my interpretation of your three paragraphs.

1. If you are making the assumption that I think you are, then you are a liar.
2. What I said before is true not only because I said it was true but because it is self-evidently true.
3. Since you are a liar I'm moving on.

Priceless.

 

[glockmail]

Whose written claim? You can assert anything you like. At present I would say that our knowledge of the universe in not complete enough to make any claims concerning designs or who might have made the design.

.....

Actually, current scientific theory suggests that the universe is expanding and emanated from a single point, exactly as the words of Genesis so state.

 

[editec]

I understand very well how a car engine works, but I am still fairly certain that it was designed.

This rock which I am about to smack somebody up the side of the head with, fits my hand perfectly.

Obviously, based on how well this rock fits my hand, and the fact that it is dense enough and hard enough to smash somebody's head in, GOD DESIGNED this rock on my behalf as a weapon.

Proof positive not only that GOD designed the universe, but that he did so entirely so I could bludgeon people with this rock he designed with my hand in mind

Praise Jesus!