John Stonestreet thinks so: - http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/28991 - "According to the famous Drake equation, a probabilistic argument designed by SETI pioneer, Frank Drake, there could be as many as 100 million thriving, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy—many of them more advanced than our own. - *** - "...one astrophysicist argues in a forthcoming paper, the old estimates vastly inflated the number of potential alien civilizations. Eric Zackrisson at Sweden's Uppsala University suggests that modern research points not to a galaxy “throbbing and humming” with life, but to one in which Earth-like planets are exceedingly rare. - "It turns out that Drake's equation failed to take into account factors that we now know to be essential to life. For example, scientists once believed that planets orbiting a certain distance from their host stars in the so-called “Goldilocks zone” were prime real estate for creatures like us. - "But not anymore. It turns out that the size and chemical composition of the host stars matters just as much as planetary orbits. And according to Zackrisson, most planets in the universe likely orbit stars that bear little resemblance to our sun. These stars are either much bigger, much smaller, or just made of the wrong stuff. - "And in light of the fruitless fifty-year search for extraterrestrial radio signals, predictions of a sky buzzing with activity are sounding less like science and more like science fiction. Increasingly, it looks as if we are alone in the universe. - "And just how alone? Zackrisson estimates that given all the factors that make Earth what it is, our planet may be one in 700 quintillion to host intelligent life. That's one out of seven followed by twenty zeros, or the estimated number of planets in the entire universe. - Nathaniel Scharping at Discover Magazine writes with a straight face that Earth appears to have been dealt “a fairly lucky hand.” He makes up for this understatement later, concluding that, “from a purely statistical standpoint, Earth perhaps shouldn't exist.” - "And yet, here we are. - "Intelligent Design theorists have long pointed out how improbably unique our little blue planet is. And findings like this only deepen the problem for materialists. Because if thinking creatures emerged here and nowhere else, it makes us look less like accidents and more like—dare I say it—miracles." - Comment: A miracle by God?

QUOTE: "Why don’t we wake up every morning and realize our existence is miraculous?”

dhw: Does he believe that atheists are incapable of appreciating the miraculousness of life?

Um, yes...because they are. They can not, by definition, appreciate it as a miracle.

QUOTE: But here’s a third reason to believe in God: I’ve met some men in their 20s whose thinking as teens was so destructive that it looked as if they would soon be dead, imprisoned, or traitorous. I was one of them. But “the steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; his mercies never come to an end” -- and the Bible tells me so.

dhw: The third reason to believe in God is that he believes in God and it helped him to become a better person. I appreciate that such faith can indeed be a power for good. So can a placebo. It doesn’t prove God exists, let alone that his mercies never come to an end.

Well, if you accept that there is a God as a given, and then look at all of creation through the lens of that faith, you do begin to get a sense of his love and mercy. Moreover, when you begin to get that sense, you also begin to feel a sense of awe, reverence, appreciation, along with seeing the need for responsibility and accountability for your actions because you see your life, and all other life, as a precious gift that should be cared for.

That is not to say that Atheist can not be accountable, but honestly, what reason do they have to be? They are just 'unimportant, momentary, minuscule specks in a vast indifferent Universe'. If they are right, their actions, ours, or anyone's make no difference whatsoever. Burn the world and damn it all, it doesn't matter one whit. What evolution did before it can do again, and WILL! Anything and everything is meaningless, and therefore valueless because it is all just blind random chance, so do what you want, when you want, how you want, and who cares how destructive you are in the process. After all, its all temporary anyway.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

dhw: David’s comment: His message is the micro point discussions we have on one tiny aspect of God's reality are beside the point. The overall picture proves God beyond a reasonable doubt.

Apart from the Goldilocks argument, which we have agreed on many times, if the rest of our discussions sank to this level of thinking, I would close the site down.

Sometimes it is good to present what pure believing passion sounds like. No sense of a smidgen of doubt. Are atheists that convinced of their position?

Fine tuning in cell functions:

https://salvomag.com/article/salvo62/finely-tuned-life

"In Fit for a Purpose: Does the Anthropic Principle Include Biochemistry? Dr. Fazale Rana revisits Henderson’s thesis and examines key biochemical systems to ascertain whether the anthropic principle manifest at the cosmological scale is similarly evident in the world of the microscopic.

"Rana’s working hypothesis is, “f the Creator intentionally designed the universe to be biofriendly, then he wouldn’t have limited the influence of the universe’s physical constants to the processes of star and planetary formation,” but rather would have “designed the physical constants to influence chemical and biological systems as well.”1 Rana points out that Henderson demonstrated over 100 years ago that anthropic principles abounded in chemistry. This was manifested in Henderson’s insightful characterization of the acid-base buffering systems in blood, the cytoplasm of the cell, and other bodily fluids. Henderson had argued that such a perfect system could never have arisen from the unguided processes of natural selection.

'In examining several key biochemical systems (nucleic acid and protein synthesis, cell membrane formation, and energy harvesting pathways), Rana sought to answer three questions: (1) Does a molecular rationale and logic undergird the structure and function of these systems? (2) Are such physicochemical constraints as molecular geometry and hydrophobicity (the property of being repelled by water), dictated by the laws of nature, responsible for the configuration and activity of these systems? (3) When the structural properties and functional features of natural biochemical systems are compared with other conceivable biochemical analogs, do the natural systems display the just-right properties that make them unusually fit for life? If the answer to all three questions is yes, Rana argues, then these biochemical systems manifest anthropic coincidences.

"Rana’s investigation reveals that not only are all three of these criteria met but that they demonstrate optimization—which is not what we would expect from complex systems arising from purely materialistic processes.

"Rana then asks: What are the implications of embracing an anthropic principle for biochemical systems? Does this insight advance knowledge or present new avenues for research?

"Under the naturalistic paradigm, biochemical systems are said to be the consequence of blind processes occurring over geological time. Consequently, research has primarily focused on characterizing or describing their properties. Rana suggests that an anthropic framework opens up new avenues for research because, as questions formerly raised to answer “what” and “how” are advanced to answer “why,” scientists will seek principles informed by such a framework. These principles would be powerful tools for developing new technologies.

"Scientists will likely resist a biochemical anthropic principle (as many did the cosmological one) because methodological naturalism has held sway for so long. Nevertheless, Rana asserts that there are excellent reasons to affirm the biochemical anthropic principle that biological systems demonstrate exquisite fine-tuning with the just-right properties to sustain life—characteristics that by necessity evince a Mind.

Comment: no doubt, a designing mind is requjired.

More complete study of ATP rotary mechanism:

https://phys.org/news/2022-10-molecular-motor-specialists-deepen-rotary-ion.html

"A team of specialists in nano-sized rotational motors have directly visualized the process of pumping sodium ions, enabling them to explain why there had up until now appeared to be a structural symmetry mismatch between two motors that make up part of the key protein driving the process. Their findings should help develop a better understanding of the mechanisms involved with cellular energy-conversion motors more generally.

***

"Many will remember from secondary-school biology how in complex cells, a protein called ATP synthase—embedded in the membrane of the mitochondria, often described as the powerhouse of the cell—operates sort of like the way that a hydroelectric plant works, but to produce usable energy for an organism. A hydroelectric plant exploits the rush of water coming from the reservoir behind a dam to turn a turbine that drives a dynamo that produces electricity.

"Similarly, the "rotors" of an ATP synthase protein use a rush of protons from a region on one side of the membrane with a high proton concentration to a region on the other side of low concentration (a "proton gradient") to rotate a "stalk" within the ATP synthase that manufactures molecules of adenosine triphosphate (ATP)—the energy currency of the cell that is used to power its activities.

"There is also an "opposite" protein to the ATP synthase called vacuolar ATPase (V-ATPase) that operates as a proton "pump" that uses the energy from ATP to produce a proton gradient. (In a similar way to how some hydroelectric plants that operate like large batteries can work in reverse, using electricity to pump water back up into a reservoir)

"V-ATPases consist of two rotary motors, Vo and V1, and earlier studies had been conducted on model types of V-ATPases to understand how these two motor proteins are able to couple their rotational motions and functions.

***

"Furthermore, V-ATPases can pump not just protons, but also sodium ions (Na+) as well. In the bacterium Enterococcus hirae (E. hirae—which sometimes causes sepsis in humans), its V-ATPase works as an ATP-driven Na+ pump to maintain desired sodium ion concentrations inside the cell.

What was known about the heretofore under-investigated E. hirae V-ATPase is that a unit of the ATP energy currency is "spent" (hydrolyzed), driving rotation of its V1 motor (EhV1; the other motor is called EhVo). But it does this in stepwise fashion. EhV1 rotates only 120° per "expenditure" of ATP, meaning that it takes 3 ATP molecules to rotate a full 360°.

"In addition, previous research by the scientists had found that each 120° step of the EhV1 rotor is further divided into sub-steps of 40° and 80° (adding up to 120°). But the scientists had been unable to clearly resolve quite how steps and related pauses of EhVo in rotation occurred.

"The key mystery was a mismatch between the two motors. ATP hydrolysis generates rotational torque in the EhV1 motor, which is then translated to the EhVo motor. The latter motor also has a subunit composed of a ring of ten subunits (c10-ring), which rotates in the membrane. The sodium ions are transported across the membrane by the rotation of this c10-ring.

"But there's a structural symmetry mismatch here: the ratio between the number of sodium ions transported and the number of ATP spent per rotation," said Ryota Iino, a biophysicist and professor from the Institute for Molecular Science of Japan's National Institutes of Natural Sciences.

"'There are ten sodium ions transported per full turn, and each full turn costs three ATP, or one ATP per 120° step of the EhV1 motor," Professor Iino continued. "Ten divided by three obviously equals 3.3, or one and a third sodium ions. But you can't have a third of a sodium ion. So what's going on?"

***

"Using a 40-nanometer nanoparticle of gold as a probe that could be tracked with a high-speed camera, the researchers found that the binding of sodium ions and binding of ATP to different parts of the protein occur at different angles, and the coupling between the two motors does indeed involve a rigid component. The rigid component in turn requires 13 pauses—resolving the mismatch (and need for a "third" of a sodium ion), as well as occasional backward steps in the process.

The results also confirm that V-ATPases, with their multiple peripheral stalks, are more "rigidly coupled than the ATPases that only have one peripheral stalk and work as ATP synthases."

Comment: a perfect example of irreducible complexity. This cannot be formed by stepwise mutations. It must be formed by a full design step. It is obvious a designer must exist.