• 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!

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
PREFACE, DIALOGS:

Reviewer insults my scientific talents:
"I can't make heads or tails of this word salad, tbh."

To whom I reply:

It is not different from any good scientific paper. I bet, you would say "word salat" to any of Dr. Hawking's papers. Provided, if he is not PhD and not peer-reviewed.
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.

Reviewer: "you have here the intelligent-seeming math (which has been noted by others who evidently can do math, that it also "fails")."

To whom I reply by axiom: "Some people (not all) lie constantly, other people lie only once a month. All we lie."

DEFINITION:
The sense of Theory of Probability is in this: if the probability of an event p is 50 %, then we compare it to the following STANDARD event: one time tossed a coin onto the air falls "head". If the probability of an event is 1/100 then 7 times in the row tossed coin falls "head". We hate it if we need to toss the coin 30 times and constantly get "head". Thus, such an event, assumably, has not happened. Hereby it is forbidden by the theory to repeat the attempts. You need to get 30 heads by one single attempt. You can not repeat the 30 tosses day after day. You have only one time. Try it.

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

PAPER:
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.
The modern textbook definition of Evolution says, that Evolution is not directed process.
Thus, accidental.
Therefore, Science is factually against God.
Science 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.

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.

Let the p be the upper limit of probability, it is the probability of life
emergence on a planet best suited for life.
Yes, it is very hard to calculate the p. But one can get some information about it. Namely, assuming, that p is small, the p is less than 100/N, where N is the number of planets suitable for life in the entire Universe and Multiverse.
The exact probability of Abiogenesis is unknown in Neo-Darwinism. The lowest limit
is 0, and the upper limit is 1/(250!), where 250 is the number of proteins, the
(!) is factorial of 250. Therefore, mine p=100/N belongs to 0<100/N<1/(250!).
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.

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

DISCUSSION:

Formally speaking:
Situation prior to life emergence in our Universe:
1. There is 50 % probability, that the Universe gets alive.
2. There is zero probability, that Earth gets alive.

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.

But because the event with zero % probability never happens, the Creationists are right: we need God to jump from zero to 100 %.

Analogously the Multiverse and fine-tuning:
There was zero probability, that our Universe will get the right physical constants for life. But then this probability became 100. It is a miracle!

It is really hard to save people these "last days". OK. The probability of simple lifeforms is some p=10 %. However, the probability of technically advanced life is near zero: we didn't get signals from space. So, in my paper, I will write this: "due to paper
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/
the p can not be considered the probability of simple life, but rather of the technically advanced one."
God is hiding because He does not want to be scientifically proven. He wants to be loved, not proven!


What method God used 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
 
Last edited:

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Zero probability for Evolution
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."
Rather, there is zero probability that you would get it right. Instead, you managed two dumb mistakes in your first sentence. Well done ... NOT.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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."
Therefore, Science is factually against God.
First, the beginning of life, has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. You should know this by now.

The process of evolution is a scientific fact, is absolutely correct. We can observe it happening. Just look at the patterns that wind creates in the sand. That's a process that changes the landscape over time. That is evolution.

All the rest of what you scraped from an apologist's website has to do with Abiogenesis. That has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

BTW, plenty of people believe in God, and also accept the fact of evolution. I do. Why is this so hard for you? You think your ideas about God, trumps science? How about changing your ideas about God? Isn't that easier than denying the entire world of science to protect an idea you don't know what to do with?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
An approach the probability of abiogenesis....
- How many possible chemical pathways leading to
abiogenesis are there?
- How many of them exist on the various kinds of
planets?
- How many planets have at least one of these
pathways?
- How many potential chemical reactions that
possibly lead to abiogenesis have occurred?
This one depends upon the number, kind, &
duration of planets & the chemical pathways.

None of those questions are answerable.
Thus it is utterly ridiculously impossible to
calculate any probability that life would arise
by abiogenesis.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
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."
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).

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
Evolution says nothing about how life began; that is abiogenesis.
Not good that your post has a falsehood in the first sentence. After that I can't be bothered reading the rest
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Evolution says nothing about how life began; that is abiogenesis.
Not good that your post has a falsehood in the first sentence. After that I can't be bothered reading the rest
Please read a textbook on Neo-Darwinism. Evolution is defined as the accidental process, in
particular, the man came from a common ancestor with monkeys by accident.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
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."
Therefore, Science is factually against God.
Science doesn't do anything, it is an abstract concept.
None of the scientific hypotheses for the origin of life (on Earth) are presented as fact. Evidence is presented supporting some aspects and steps in the process as possible or likely.
None of this has anything to do with evolution, which is about changes in existing life, not it's origins.
None of this is "against God" given that regardless of the proposed scientific process, it would remain theoretically possible for that to be somehow initiated by a god.

Science can't be "factually against God" because God (capital G, as commonly claimed) is specifically defined to be "outside science". If you want to discuss science, it can't have anything to do with God at all, positive or negative.

The probability that
at least on one planet in this group life will begin is P.
The probability that at least one planet in a given group develops life will increase with the number of planets in the group though. If you had 20 planets, the chance of at least one developing life will be twice that for 10 planets. The extremely low odds of life developing on any given planet is counter-balanced by the extremely large number of planets in the universe.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Please read a textbook on Neo-Darwinism. Evolution is defined as the accidental process, in
particular, the man came from a common ancestor with monkeys by accident.
Please read my statement again.
No credible book on Evolution talks about 'accidental' - evolution is NOT accidental.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
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).

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.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The assumption that life has begun accidentally is presented as a scientific fact
by Science,...
Simply put, the above in not true as we cannot and do not assume anything that is beyond our abilities to acquire evidence one way or the other. It's like asking "Are we in a multiverse?", which is impossible for us to substantiate nor deny.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
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.
This is equivalent of saying that while there are zillions of planets, it was sheer luck for life to start on earth.
Don't you see the fallacy of this?

Ciao

- viole
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
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).

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

And again


73861d411c48af79db6e1416dec2c38b.gif
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
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).

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

ResearchGate? What happened to arXiv and viXra?
 
Top