Zero probability for Evolution

[questfortruth]

I get you are desperate to 'prove' evolution wrong, but you should at least get your maths right.
If P is the probability that at least one planet of a group of ten will have life commence, then it doesn't follow that for one of the planets (Earth in your example), the chance is P/10.

The probability, that life will emerge on planet A is a, and on planet B the b. Thus, the probability,
that life will emerge in this system of planets is sum a+b. Assuming, that life will occur only on one planet of these two.

 

[sun rise]

 

[questfortruth]

ResearchGate? What happened to arXiv and viXra?

Is it really the arXiv quality?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Is it really the arXiv quality?

Do you really want me to answer that?

 

[ChristineM]

ResearchGate? What happened to arXiv and viXra?

I don't think they wouldn't let him on arXiv.

 

[QuestioningMind]

The assumption that life has begun accidentally is presented as a scientific fact
by Science, not as an assumption: "the process of Evolution is scientific fact."
Evolution is defined as the accidental process, in
particular, man came from a common ancestor with monkeys by accident.
Therefore, Science is factually against God.

Let us consider a group of 10 lifeless similar planets. The probability that
at least on one planet in this group life will begin is P. Let us consider the
lifeless planet Earth, one of the planets in this group. The probability that
life will begin on Earth is p = P/10. Generally, if there are N planets, then
p is about p=P/N (for small p). Indeed, the probability, that life will emerge
on planet A is a, and on planet B the b. Thus, the probability,
that life will emerge in this system of planets is sum a+b. Assuming, that
life will occur only on one planet of these two.

Life has begun. Therefore, the above statement with probability P was realized
and the second statement with probability p was realized as well. But even if
P is 50%, the second statement is practically impossible if the probability p
is near zero. This means that Jordano Bruno's idea of infinite many planets
suitable for life does not help life to emerge on our planet.

Secondly, the fine-tuning argument/proof for God was debunked by the
Multiverse idea: each universe in the infinite Multiverse is equipped with
slightly different fundamental constants of physics. But due to the present
note, the idea of many universes does not help our universe to have the right
physical constants.

Moreover, it certainly harms the idea of life on Earth to have an entire
lifeless universe-s out there. Because then N=infinity, and so p=0, as p<100%/N.

The original is published in ResearchGate:
(PDF) Zero Evolution probability

Please explain what makes you such an expert on the subject that you've been able to conclude that it's impossible that your god being didn't use the process of evolution in order to create human beings. And if you've somehow ruled out evolution as a possibility then surely you can tell us all what method your god being DID use to create human beings.

 

[questfortruth]

I don't think they wouldn't let him on arXiv.

Do you really want me to answer that?

I am not hurt by this injustice because I am a loser. Look: if during 10 last years you have faced injustice, then the probability that during the next month you'll face recognition is simply

one month divided by the number of months in 10 years, which is one percent.

Look: the failures in life are making us a loser. And success-es are making from us a Lucky, charismatic person.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I am not hurt by this injustice because I am a loser. Look: if during 10 last years you have faced injustice, then the probability that during the next month you'll face recognition is simply

one month divided by the number of months in 10 years, which is one percent.

Look: the failures in life are making us a loser. And success-es are making from us a Lucky, charismatic person.

I’m a lucky, charismatic loser.

 

[questfortruth]

what method your god being DID use to create human beings

Wonder. Simply - wonder. Because the God is Spirit. For example, the Spirit of Knowledge. God knows even the answer to Riemann Hypothesis, even if God has no proof of it. Because His name is Knowledge. Same way, His name is Creativity. Therefore, He can create man even from nothing.

The difference between Creationism and Neo-Darwinism is the number of kinds.
It is well explained here:
Comprehension of Evolution and Creation

 

[ChristineM]

I am not hurt by this injustice because I am a loser. Look: if during 10 last years you have faced injustice, then the probability that during the next month you'll face recognition is simply

one month divided by the number of months in 10 years, which is one percent.

Look: the failures in life are making us a loser. And success-es are making from us a Lucky, charismatic person.

Maybe one day you will manage one percent. But not with the off the wall/ceiling/floor ideas you employ at the moment

 

[questfortruth]

Maybe one day you will manage one percent.

I smell love.

 

[Viker]

Therefore, Science is factually against God

Stating evolution is a fact is not "factually" against God. It does defy the pseudo-science creationism, more specifically young Earth creationism. It also defies a faulty literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Clara Tea]

QuestForTruth: "Science is factually against God"

Science uses facts, religion uses faith. This doesn't mean that anyone who uses facts is against God.

Similarly, logic isn't against God.

Facts are not meant to confuse us and make us stray from our paths of nonsense.

In your calculation, you assign equal probability for life to emerge on planets without water, without an atmosphere, and with little light from the sun. Maybe the odds of life (as we know it) are not the odds of life (as we don't know it). Maybe an energy source, other than the sun, might be the explosive force of a liquid nitrogen volcano?

 

[questfortruth]

In your calculation, you assign equal probability for life to emerge on planets without water, without an atmosphere, and with little light from the sun.

Thank you very much. Well, I am adding to the paper this: "the p is the upper limit of probability, it is the probability of life emergence on a planet best suited for life."

 

[questfortruth]

It does defy the pseudo-science creationism, more specifically young Earth creationism.

But the YEC is a religion. Thus, at least one religion gets in the way of Science.

 

[Shakeel]

Sorry, no one assumes that life began accidentally. This may be record. You refuted yourself b making a false claim before the end of your first sentence.

Who created life?

 

[Shakeel]

particular, man came from a common ancestor with monkeys by accident.

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?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who created life?

That is a poorly formed question. There is no evidence that a "who" was involved. Do you have any evidence for a "who"?

 

[Revoltingest]

The probability, that life will emerge on planet A is a, and on planet B the b. Thus, the probability,
that life will emerge in this system of planets is sum a+b. Assuming, that life will occur only on one planet of these two.

Ya canna just add probabilities.
But I donna remember what is correct.

Edit...
I figured out how to do it.
But it's difficult to express using a keyboard.
It should be available on the internet.

 

[HonestJoe]

The probability, that life will emerge on planet A is a, and on planet B the b. Thus, the probability,
that life will emerge in this system of planets is sum a+b. Assuming, that life will occur only on one planet of these two.

That's right but do you recognise that this directly contradicts your OP?