[meteorite-list] List rules / WAP / Moon origin

From: Matson, Robert <ROBERT.D.MATSON_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:21:02 2004
Message-ID: <AF564D2B9D91D411B9FE00508BF1C86901B4EB63_at_US-Torrance.mail.saic.com>

With understanding nods to Tom Knudson and Randy, I have to back-up
Geoff Notkin on his comment that posting lengthy excerpts from Genesis
is not appropriate for this list. Posts should in some way relate to
meteorites, and I think it's a stretch to say that the Old Testament
qualifies in this regard. Additionally, it is pretty safe to assume
that the readership here is extremely well-educated and well-read, and
thus regardless of faith (or the lack thereof) it is unnecessary to
quote passages with which nearly everyone is familiar.

Addressing a few of Randy's numbered points:

> 2) I guess that anybody who believes in God is NOT a scientist...

Geoff did not write that, nor do I think you can imply that from
what he wrote:

"The Meteorite List is clearly and specifically a science list
and, as such, is intended for the discussion of scientific
principles that relate to meteorites."

Geoff is certainly aware that there are ample examples of famous
scientists who also happened to have religious beliefs. Perhaps
some of them (and some of you) like to watch baseball or listen
to classical musical -- that's great! But discussions of great
pitchers or the inspirations of famous composers are just as
inappropriate for this list as Bible quotations, and that's the
point I believe Geoff was trying to make.

> 3) A lot of messages on this board do not interest me. Therefore,
> I use the "delete" button. Simply put.

Ah, but there is a difference between messages that don't interest
you, and messages that violate list rules. I'm sure Tom didn't
intend to do the latter with his post, as he was trying to offer
a counter-theory (albeit non-scientific) for the Moon's origin.
He just overdid it with excessive quoting of an untestable
alternative.

> 4) Take a really good look at all of the "coincidences" that had
> to have happened to put us all here.

They aren't really coincidences in the context of the Weak Anthropic
Principle (WAP). Here's one wording of it: "The observed values of
all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable, but
they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist
sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement
that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."

To be more specific, the basic properties of the universe (e.g.
its size, age, physical laws) must permit the existence of observers,
for if intelligent life did not evolve, it is obvious that no one
would be around to question their improbable existence. In Nature
224 (1969) F. B. Salisbury provided an amusing example to illustrate
how this principle works:

"... the enormous improbability of the evolution of intelligent life
in general and Homo sapiens in particular does not mean we should be
amazed we exist at all. This would make as much sense as Elizabeth II
being amazed she is Queen of England. Even though the probability of
a given Briton being monarch is about 10^-8, someone must be. Only
if there is a monarch is it possible for the monarch to calculate the
improbability of her particular existence. Similarly, only if an
intelligent species does evolve is it possible for its members to
ask how probable it is for an intelligent species to evolve. Both
are examples of WAP self-selection in action."

As for our Moon's origin, scientific theories make testable predictions.
If some of a theory's predictions turn out to be wrong, then the theory
must be modified or discarded. The three main theories with which I'm
familiar are fission, capture or impact. Of these, impact is the front-
runner, and indeed the other two have probably been long ruled out by
experimental counter-evidence.

Cheers,
Rob
Received on Thu 10 Jul 2003 02:21:04 PM PDT