Zero probability for Evolution

[F1fan]

It is because there are only two sources: God, satan. The Science if not of God, then of satan.
The satan does not want the God to be proven.

But that's OK, because the God created satan, so it's the God that didn't want to be proven.

Or are you suggesting that satan is more powerful than the God and can prevent it from being proved? I wonder how your God feels about your low opinion of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wait, so you're skeptical than any "YOU" exists? So who is posting under your name? And since scientists are YOUs too, how can we be sure they are doing science since we doubt YOUs exist?

Let's be clear, we have a good working description of what consciousness is, and we observe this phenomenon in many organisms that having functioning brains.

All of you goobers are just a figment of my imagination Dang! I am a creative genius

 

[questfortruth]

we doubt YOUs exist?

Let's be clear, we have a good working description of what consciousness is, and we observe this phenomenon in many organisms that having functioning brains.

The existence of a soul is the supernatural realm, thus not scientific. But it is Creationism.

Evolution however, is not undirected.
It's just an agent with intentions that is doing the directing.

Instead, it is, in simple and broad terms, the environment.

But the environment is not directed as well. There is no vector of evolution there, only the growth of chaos.

One might think that it was impersonating nonexistence. If so, it convinced me it's not there. Hopefully, that was its intention.

Look up the video of atheist Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder on YouTube. She "finds" a perfect match between the dog's butt and the face of Jesus Christ. She will hate believers even more if God becomes reality for her.

It's Hoyle's fallacy - the junkyard tornado and 747 trope long since debunked.

No, it is not a fallacy, but the Theory of Probability, the definition of probability. Even if the process is determined by the initial conditions and forces, there is 50% probability, that toss of the coin results in "head".

because the God created satan

No, the God has created Holy Lucifer, who later has lost the gift of life and existence, and became satan. Therefore, God has not created satan, because satan does not exist. He is the Non-existent idol of disbelievers. When they say "god" and his criminal activities (the motive for flood, children cancer) they actually refer to satan. There are two spirits: God and satan, Good and Evil.

Or are you suggesting that satan is more powerful than the God

There are two spirits: God and satan, Good and Evil.

 

[HonestJoe]

The formula 100/N comes from the assumption, that probability of life to emerge on Earth was very small.

That isn't why it is wrong. You are declaring a fixed probability of life developing on any one of a set of planets (P) then dividing that by a variable number of planets (N). What you are ignoring is that if you increase the number of planets, the overall probability of any one of them developing life will also increase. P is not fixed, it's proportional to N.

The chance of life developing on one specific planet (p) is fixed, remaining the same regardless of how many other planets you might be considering. If you increase the number of planets being considered, the overall probability of any one of them developing life will (obviously) increase, not decrease as you claimed.

That might not hold for primitive life, like apes, trees, cats. But for technically advanced life this assumption perfectly holds: the SETI has not detected signals of such life.

That's irrelevant since it's all hypothetical speculation anyway. Each of those defined events - technologically advanced life, complex life or any life - with have their own separate probabilities of happening on any given planet but the logic I've explained above will apply equally to them. Increase the number of planets and the overall probability will increase (even if it remains relatively small).

So you still haven't demonstrated that anything here has zero probability.

 

[questfortruth]

P is not fixed, it's proportional to N

Because the P is probability, then holds not P = C*N, but 0 < P < 100 %.

The chance of life developing on one specific planet (p) is fixed

Yes, it is fixed, but the value is not known. It is within 0<p<100 %.

 

[ecco]

The probability, that I exist seems to be near zero because the right sperm-microbe of my father's sperm sample was very lucky to get into the right egg of my mother. However, Science has not proven yet, that soul or consciousness exists at all. Therefore, it is not an objection to my paper.

What paper? Your posts about probabilities? The probability against you existing is greater than anything you posted. You can't argue against the math, so you try to dance around it. That's typical.

But even if there is soul, I would reply: God did it, God has bitten the odds.

Unintelligible nonsensical apologetics.

 

[ecco]

It's you again. Of course you didn't focus on what you were replying to again so I'll just ignore you.

Of course I focused. Your post wasn't very long. You asked...

Who created life?

I replied...

What evidence do you have that a "who" created life? Did you get that from a book?

Why do you duck and dodge? You asked who created life? I don't agree that any "who" created life. So, I asked why you think a "who" created life. If you don't want your assertions questioned, don't make them.

If you make them, be prepared to support them.

 

[ecco]

YECs must argue against an earth billions of years old. They must reject the fact that dinosaurs and cockroaches lived much, much longer than humans on this earth. They must reject these things because they need to feel special.

They want to believe that their god made this earth just for them. In addition to much other science, they ignore that this earth is on the fringes of a very ordinary galaxy containing 100 thousand million other stars. They ignore that this galaxy is just one of 2 trillion known galaxies. Their god made all this just to put them on just one little planet. How special.

 

[questfortruth]

YECs must argue against an earth billions of years old. They must reject the fact that dinosaurs and cockroaches lived much, much longer than humans on this earth. They must reject these things because they need to feel special.

They want to believe that their god made this earth just for them. In addition to much other science, they ignore that this earth is on the fringes of a very ordinary galaxy containing 100 thousand million other stars. They ignore that this galaxy is just one of 2 trillion known galaxies. Their god made all this just to put them on just one little planet. How special.

One might think that it was impersonating nonexistence. If so, it convinced me it's not there. Hopefully, that was its intention.

Look up the video of atheist Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder on YouTube. She "finds" a perfect match between the dog's butt and the face of Jesus Christ. She will hate believers even more if God becomes reality for her.

 

[tas8831]

Situation after the life emergence in our Universe:
1. There is 100 % probability, that the Universe got alive.
2. There is 100 % probability, that Earth got alive.

Amazing "science"!!

You are totally top notch! Right up there with this guy:

 

[tas8831]

First, the beginning of life, has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. You should know this by now.

SHOULD, yes. All of the regulars here should know that by now. But every, single one of them trots that crap out when they're in a jam...

 

[tas8831]

There are some 260 species of monkeys and only one species of man. What happened to that one individual that begun to evolve into man?

Riddle me this - is there some kind of contract that creationists sign that requires them to misrepresent evolution?
Or are the bunch of you just suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect?

 

[tas8831]

The Creationists say that Neo-Darwinism uses incidents.

Why would you ask a creationist about science?

 

[tas8831]

It is because there are only two sources: God, satan.

You are engaging in the fallacy of begging the question.
Provide evidence that either of thise beings exist BEFORE foisting them upon others as 'sources' of anything.

The Science if not of God, then of satan.
The satan does not want the God to be proven.

The satan seems to be more clever and adept than the God does, what with his sneaking around under God's nose and doing stuff. I thought your god was omniscient and all that?

It is not different from any good scientific paper.

Yes, yes it is.
My freshman undergraduates write better papers.

 

[questfortruth]

The satan seems to be more clever and adept than the God does, what with his sneaking around under God's nose and doing stuff. I thought your god was omniscient and all that?

If God would destroy evil spirit, then by this God would destroy smokers, drinkers, etc. Because they act driven by evil spirit. The spirit of drinking, etc.

 

[HonestJoe]

Because the P is probability, then holds not P = C*N, but 0 < P < 100 %.

Yes, it is fixed, but the value is not known. It is within 0<p<100 %.

You're evading the key points. Your initial logic was flawed, your edits have only made it worse and you've failed to demonstrate that anything here has zero probability.

 

[questfortruth]

You're evading the key points. Your initial logic was flawed, your edits have only made it worse and you've failed to demonstrate that anything here has zero probability.

You are unjust to me. But you are not making sin. It is a paradox, logical contradiction, which soon I would publish here under name "Theory of Loser".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course I focused. Your post wasn't very long. You asked...

​

I replied...

​

Why do you duck and dodge? You asked who created life? I don't agree that any "who" created life? So, I asked why you think a "who" created life. If you don't want your assertions questioned, don't make them.

If you make them, be prepared to support them.

I essentially asked the same question. He never answered me either.

 

[ecco]

Look up the video of atheist Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder on YouTube. She "finds" a perfect match between the dog's butt and the face of Jesus Christ. She will hate believers even more if God becomes reality for her.

That's a very childish way to duck and dodge. But not unexpected.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It is linked to consciousness. Science has not proven, that it exists. So, Science has not proven that some YOU exists. After such proof, we need theory for it.

Science has yet to agree on a concrete term of "consciousness". Science depends on precise definitions. You can't prove or disprove something until it is precisely defined and its characteristics, as well, are precisely defined.

Consciousness - Wikipedia.

So its not that science has "failed to prove" consciousness (it would be interesting to hear what a neurologist would say about your claim -- probably scoff) but "failed to define", due to disagreements on what the precise definition should be and what characteristics it includes.

The formula 100/N comes from the assumption, that probability of life to emerge on Earth was very small. That might not hold for primitive life, like apes, trees, cats. But for technically advanced life this assumption perfectly holds: the SETI has not detected signals of such life.

Woa. Wait. Intelligent life? You've shifted the goalpost.

So, do you also complain about the sciences that address the tides, storms and lightning because it conflicts with the tales of Poseidon, Jupiter and Thor?

And the world must be flat, because what else would Akupāra be doing.....

It is because there are only two sources: God, satan. The Science if not of God, then of satan.
The satan does not want the God to be proven.

OMG.