Aliens Don't Exist and If They Did, It's Irrelevant

[Itinerant Lurker]

So I got the chance to try and run down your claims about Hugh Ross’ “800 variables for life”. I don’t have the book, but the only online references I could find were simply more second-hand references to it which, given the tendency for creationists to make up stuff like this, left me a bit dubious.

Fortuitously, I am quite familiar with Ross’ website, “Reasons to Believe”, from my days as an OEC. It turns out that your claim of 800 variables is, at best, very outdated (it was ostensibly “sourced” in a book from 1995, after all). Ross has a few articles on what he sees as the fine tuning of life on earth from 2001 and 2004 which detail not 800 but 154 parameters for life (Fine Tuning for Life on Earth), and which assign probabilities to some of them (Probabilities for Life on Earth).

There are a few very good reasons to think that Ross is grossly exagerrating what would be required for life to arise, not the least of which include that he doesn’t appear to explain his basis for assigning probabilities to his parameters, and that he seems to ignore that many of his parameters are interdependent or just downright unnecessary. (I can provide some examples of this if you'd like - just let me know).

I guess what I’d like to know is what is it about Ross’ apparently flawed claims that you find more compelling than the claims of other scientists? Is it really the strength of his evidence, or is it simply because it confirms your pre-existing beliefs? If the former, what specific evidence do you find particularly compelling (and why didn’t you simply present it when I, on multiple occasions, politely asked?); if the latter, shouldn’t that be the basis for some pretty drastic self-examination of your motives?

As always, I appreciate your taking to the time to reply.




Lurker

[Churchwork]

The number of variables has increased from under 100 to over 800. When you divide through the number of estimated planets in the universe, it's impossible for life to exist on another planet. Ross and others have done their analysis. What they have in common is there is not enough planets in the universe for life to exist on another planet. So does this agree with or disagree with God's glory? I believe God's glory is manifestly greater in creating this entire universe for life to exist on just one planet as it would be redundantly unnecessary otherwise, and His precision work would have to be even more precise for life to exist on just one planet. That's my God the God of the Bible.