-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Non-sterile Earth in sterile cosmos. Paradox.
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
Not every question or problem is a paradox.
Not every probability calculation is cromulent,
especially so regarding phenomena poorly
understood, eg, pathways to abiogenesis.
Not every probability calculation is cromulent,
especially so regarding phenomena poorly
understood, eg, pathways to abiogenesis.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Infinity is not a number, so you cannot divide 100% by infinity. Clearly someone who is an expert in mathematics would not make such a mistake like that.
Humans, I have improved the thread- Now it is simple, reread p-se.
I did not reply to the re written post but the original, i have no reason to waste more time
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
It is surely not a waste of anything!
Indeed, whatever the probability A is, that life emerges on Earth, there was a possibility, that life on Earth is the only one life in all reality. The probability B of such an outcome is less than Q=1/N. However, the Earth is a biologically isolated system (because of large distances). Thus, it is the true probability of life on Earth A=B, which inequality form A<Q does not depend on the outside world.
I am a loser in many areas of life. So, please, keep giving a chance to losers!
Last edited:
I am afraid some one beat you to it. Ever hear of the Drake equation???
at least he used read data without making any guesses to massage his ego.
Since the equation was formulated fx and ne have been considerably refined following thousands of new discoveries.
And of course you are omitting the hypothesis that life or more likely organic molecules were seeded here, in which case there is a possibility of organic molecules being present throughout the universe.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Science is only then Science when a genius can falsify it. I have new results!
Jolly good. I am sure the evidence from which you gained your results cannot be falsified.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
This is the kind of quality content I've been missing!
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Soon I will be gone to a better place. Friends, enjoy my posts. Please reread the thread, perhaps I have modified it. Thank you.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
It is a positive mindset: to be ready to go to a better place.
A negative mindset is to wish to help the transition.
Human, I replied to the OP. So human, please address the OP. Or human, at least admit that you were wrong. Got it human?
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Well you should really stop the dishonest practice of editing your posts after they've been replied to as well. It all seems to be part of your inability to accept that you could ever be wrong about anything but it makes you look so much worse than admitting mistakes ever could, especially if you actually learned from them.
I can't tell what you've changed in the OP but it's still applying logic in ways I've already explained are flawed but that you keep entirely ignoring. If you don't want your ideas challenged, stop posting them.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Friends, new information:
The definite event with one living planet has a probability A1 of less than Q. The definite event with two living planets has a probability A2 less than Q^2, and the event with H living planets has a probability AH less than Q^H, more exactly: the probability is AH=Q^H (1-Q)^{N-H}. This function has a maximum at Q=q=H/N. Then AH<q^H (1-q)^{N-H}. Thus, for given N the most probable is the event with H=1. The definite two-planets event is for example: "life on Mars and life on Earth."
In the limit N=infinity, all probabilities A1,A2,A3,...,AN turn to zero.
The definite event with one living planet has a probability A1 of less than Q. The definite event with two living planets has a probability A2 less than Q^2, and the event with H living planets has a probability AH less than Q^H, more exactly: the probability is AH=Q^H (1-Q)^{N-H}. This function has a maximum at Q=q=H/N. Then AH<q^H (1-q)^{N-H}. Thus, for given N the most probable is the event with H=1. The definite two-planets event is for example: "life on Mars and life on Earth."
In the limit N=infinity, all probabilities A1,A2,A3,...,AN turn to zero.
Creationist probability arguments are like Mad Libs for math.
Mad Libs - Wikipedia
Mad Libs - Wikipedia
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
I am well educated. I am Master of Science.
The probability of life being anywhere is obviously slim, since we don't find it anywhere but on earth (assuming that UFOs are not from space). That doesn't mean that in the vastness of space it is impossible for life to have evolved on earth.
DNA shows that all life on earth is related, and therefore, it did not spontaneously occur many times. So, even on this planet, where the conditions for life are ideal, it is next to impossible for life to have evolved.
However, that doesn't mean that it didn't evolve.
We happen to be life and be on earth. So, we can have that discussion about the origin of life. So, only places where life has evolved is there a discussion about the probability of this evolution.