So, the solar cycle is coming back around to its peak. There has been a lot of news about that lately, with Mr Thomas taking as his sources these two articles. Interestingly, since then there has been news that the cycle might calm down for quite a while, but that’s not particularly relevant.
Mr Thomas instead uses this study as an excuse to talk about the Goldilocks Zone, and other related arguments for Fine Tuning, beginning with the Magnetosphere and continuing from there:
[T]he magnetic field protects life on earth from this serious danger. If the field were not there, living creatures could not survive.
The problem with this, along with most other such arguments, is that it is only really true of life as we know it. There are ‘living creatures’ around volcanic vents, deep under the oceans, that couldn’t care less about the magnetic field of the earth. And there could easily be life on other planets that do not have such a field either.
Mr Thomas then goes on to list other fine tuning arguments:
Earth, for example, is situated within the Goldilocks zone, a “just right” distance from the sun for water to remain in liquid form on the planet’s surface. No other planet yet discovered has liquid water like that found on earth.
Again, this is only a prerequisite for our own sort of life. Take, for example, Titan. Titan has liquid (and solid and gas) methane on its surface. Such a situation could well be suitable for other sorts of life based on a similar(ish) chemistry to our own. The fact that this star-system contains both a water-planet and a methane-planet (well, moon), for no apparent reason, suggests that the chances of planets that could at least theoretically support life could well be higher than Mr Thomas is implying. The “Goldilocks zone” idea is unnecessary restrictive.
Also, the moon is strikingly well-balanced for life, being just the right distance from earth, just the right size, mass, and in just the right orbital path to make life on earth possible, in part by stirring up the ocean’s tides. In fact, its many precise specifications led two atheist scientists to title their 2005 book on the subject Who Built the Moon? They quoted famous author Isaac Asimov’s statement that the moon’s arrangement is “the most unlikely coincidence imaginable.”
One of the “atheist scientists”, Christopher Knight, is a proponent of, among other things, 366-degree Geometry. Remember, the correlation between ‘atheist’ and ‘sane’ is not perfect…
The moon has been moving out from the earth for some time, changing it’s orbit and distance. This is not a problem, as far as I am aware. Secondly, I direct you here.
Mr Thomas also mentions a few other things in an etcetera fashion, and I won’t go into them here. However, I’ve bookmarked one of his ‘references’ for later deconstruction…