Link 3 - www.watchtower.org/e/20001008/article_03...

Article "The Earth - was it founded by chance?"

A.  Solar system's "habitable zone" allowing for liquid water - excerpt:

TO AVOID extremes of temperature, the earth must orbit at the correct distance from the sun. In other solar systems, planets have been detected that orbit sunlike stars and are considered to be in the 'habitable zone'—that is, they are capable of sustaining liquid water. But even these so-called habitable planets may still not be suitable for human life. They must also rotate at the right speed and be the right size.

There is much more - Note rotation speed (3B) is mentioned as is planetary size (3C)

B. Rotation speed - feel free to post in depth on this.   I will add more detail than in the article:

Many planets rotate far different from earth's 24 hour rotation speed.  What would happen if earth rotated every 48 hours, for example?  In that case, the temperature variance from low to high would be roughly doubled.  Thus in a continental climate one would have the variance changed from a low of 45 and high of 65 to a low of 35 (with the possibility of frost) and a high of 75.

What of longer rotation speed?   Say one month, for example.   In that case the low would be roughly 30 times the present - i.e. a low of -150 F and a high of 212 F!   It is quite possible that one would not just see the sun rise, but hear it as the ice thawed and then boiled!   Water rushing (with icebergs) onto superheated ground and then violently turned to steam!

C. Planetary size - smaller

If the earth were slightly smaller and lighter than it is, the force of gravity would be weaker and much of the earth's precious atmosphere would have escaped into space. This can be seen in the case of the moon and the two planets Mercury and Mars. Being smaller and weighing less than the earth, they have little or no atmosphere 

D. Planetary size - larger

 But what if the earth were slightly bigger and heavier than it is?

Then the earth's gravitation would be stronger, and light gases, such as hydrogen and helium, would take longer to escape from the atmosphere. "More importantly," explains the science textbook Environment of Life, "the delicate balance between the gases of the atmosphere would be upset."

E.  Oxygen percentage in atmosphere

 If its level were to increase by 1 percent, forest fires would break out more frequently.

F.  CO2 (carbon dioxide) percentage in atmosphere

if the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide kept increasing, we would suffer the consequences of an overheated earth.

to be continued -

Feb 15, 2012 -- 12:28AM, Kemmer wrote:

In the 20th century, despite the world wars and plagues, etc., the population doubled roughly every 35 years.   How long would it take to go from a population of 2 to the current roughly 7 billion at this rate?

Now, I leave it to you all for now to do the math.   I will simply state that it would have taken considerable less than 6,000 years - but considering the narrowing of the gene pool in the last catastrophe at the Noachian flood - 6,000 years is a reasonable time to reach the current population.

And how do you explain the irrefutable and artifact evidence of human presence in the Americas 30,000 years ago, I wonder. 

In this case, it's not a matter of doctored "math", but common sense and "hard copy" artifacts.

If the earth were slightly smaller and lighter than it is, the force of gravity would be weaker and much of the earth's precious atmosphere would have escaped into space. This can be seen in the case of the moon and the two planets Mercury and Mars. Being smaller and weighing less than the earth, they have little or no atmosphere

Your grasp of basic astronomical facts is completely colored by the WT, I find.   If a planet or moon has an atmosphere, it isn't likely to drift off into space after deciding the planet is too small to keep it tethered.

Kemmer - You have failed to document or link your assertions.  While I have already stated that most scientists believe man has been here more than 6,000 years, I have also given you lines of evidence that conflict with this.   These lines of evidence were not presented from our literature, btw.   You have failed to address one single line of evidence which I posted.

Your second assertion is totally false - it is against what scientists have reported concerning planetary atmospheres.   Our literature stated that smaller planets, like Mars, would lose their atmospheres. 

So, do you claim Mars never had an atmosphere????

I seem to recall quite the opposite - but I will post documentation in my next post.  Please also attempt to document your post.

Thank you in advance.

Kemmer - It is not my knowledge which is lacking on this subject but is yours.  As my above quote of Wikipedia shows, Mars once had a thicker atmosphere which has since drifted off into space - so your assertion such is not likely is a false assertion.

Of course, planets smaller than Mars are even more likely to lose their atmospheres over time.

The weight of gas molecules is obviously linked to whether planetary gravity will hold that gas in said planetary atmosphere.  The CO2 molecule is relatively heavy, the H2 molecule is the lightest.  Even on earth H2 escapes - however, most other gas molecules stay on earth - thank Jehovah!

Of course, our link only gave you the basic fact.   Wikipedia has added detail. 

For example, the triple point of water on Mars involves air pressure and gravity.

Of course, the fact that the solar wind also strips the atmosphere from planets (this would be true in all solar systems, btw) is an important added detail.  Thus this involves other cases of fine tuning on earth - as I have already posted a little on how our earth is shielded from the solar wind - when I posted on the northern lights above.

So, are you prepared to argue that Mars did not have a thicker atmosphere in the past or did not have water in the past?

I will post more soon on this - zeroing in on the role of gravity as that is the specific point you deny.

Kemmer - You have failed to document or link your assertions.  While I have already stated that most scientists believe man has been here more than 6,000 years, I have also given you lines of evidence that conflict with this.   These lines of evidence were not presented from our literature, btw.   You have failed to address one single line of evidence which I posted.

Your second assertion is totally false - it is against what scientists have reported concerning planetary atmospheres.   Our literature stated that smaller planets, like Mars, would lose their atmospheres.

So, do you claim Mars never had an atmosphere????

I seem to recall quite the opposite - but I will post documentation in my next post.  Please also attempt to document your post.

Sorry, but I didn't think any "links" were necessary for the Martian atmospheric business.  I thought it was common knowledge among the informed that there was a catastrophic event--perhaps being struck by a massive meteor, comet, or asteroid--which ripped away Mars' atmosphere.  Mars-originating meteorites have been found in the ice on Antarctica.

If smaller planets can't seem to retain their atmospheres, how can scientists even contemplate terraforming them??

 Our literature stated that smaller planets, like Mars, would lose their atmospheres.

I have no doubt that your "literature" does say that, considering the other strange stuff your "literature" contains.  Perhaps there were Martians who refused to become JWs and "Jehovah" stripped away their atmosphere as punishment? 

Possible causes for the depletion of a previously thicker Martian atmosphere include:

• Catastrophic collision by a body large enough to blow away a significant percentage of the atmosphere;^[8]
• Gradual erosion of the atmosphere by solar wind;^[

How is it that Mars' atmosphere was "stripped away" by the solar wind, yet Earth which is much closer to the sun escaped damage?

I think it best that your "literature" stay away from Science because creationism negates everything that can be said about the natural universe.

I might add that the closer a planet is to the star, the stronger the solar wind will be.  Clearly, since Venus is closer to the sun and Mars is further from the sun, it is not just the solar wind that is involved with the retention of planetary atmospheres either - gravity is just one of the many ways earth is fine tuned for life!

I don't even know how to respond to such scattershot theories.  Sorry.

And you also have ignored the relative weight of gas molecules - I posted CO2 is heavier than H2O and H2 is the lightest - you have ignored this.

You expected me to comment on this obvious fact?  Is that part of your theory that "lighter" gases are unaffected by gravity??

Now, feel free to try to prove that our literature was wrong - thus far I have found it is your post which is faulty - not our literature.

Oh jeez, I guess if I really wanted to know more about astrophysics, I really should be reading the Watchtower, right? 

In contrast, you should also consult why Venus has retained its atmosphere - Venus is similar in size to earth.   Of course, it lacks many other details of fine tuning and is not suitable for life for those other reasons.

Do you even know anything about Venus apart from its similar size??  Creationists are ipso facto incapable of understanding reality in the natural world, I find.