This is an article that I found on a christian apologetics website.... very interesting indeed... aparently the total probability of our existance is 1:10^99 and since there are estimated to be a maximum of 10^23 planets in the universe (10 planets/star), by chance there shouldn't be any planets capable of supporting life in the universe (only one chance in 10^76).
27 comments
Gee what's wrong with this?
10^22 is the number of stars in the visible universe, which is estimated to be less than 10^40 of the actual universe, so you can halve that shit right away.
Stars come and go.
1x10^99's a load of crap. Chemical reactions and physical forces are not random events, they follow laws.
Furthermore, I woke up this morning at 8:15AM. In one second increments since midnight (generous considering cesium clock can measure down to more than 10^-13 of a second). So the probability of me waking up at 8:15 (a simple two event determination YES/NO) was 2^29700 or roughly 10^10000 or as impossible as their claim of life appearing on earth exactly the way it did, multiplied by itself!!!
Good to know I'm still asleep and merely dreaming people are this stupid!
And this is why you shouldn't get your scientific information from fundamental christian websites. You'll get a load of crap that proofs absolutely nothing.
So what IF that figure was correct? If the probability of our existance is that small, what does it say? We are here, so how small the probablility is does not matter. As long as the probability isn't 0 there is nothing special to talk about.
I can't remember the name of the equation (the Drake equation?), but back in my astrophysics days, the current thesis was that the probability of there being other life in the (observable) universe was about 0.8. I don't know where this guy got his information, but the numbers were pulled right out of his arse.
TDR -- Yes, it is the Drake equation.
Isn't the current estimate of stars in the known universe 100 billion trillion?
I think one of the things that escapes wwc and his ilk is the fact that even an improbable event is not impossible. When the number of possible stars around which life *could* have evolved is so great and the time involved is *so* great (13+ billion years), the improbably event of life having begun somewhere other than earth also, may become almost inevitable.
TDR - you were Astro too?
Yes, it's the Drak equation, but what WWC is blatantly ignoring is that the results of the Drake equation vary tremendously depending on your assumptions. Every component of the equation is an estimate... estimate number of stars in average galaxy, estimate number of galaxies, estimate number of F, G, and K type stars in galaxy, estimate number with planets, estimate number with planets in habitable distance... further, you can add in an estimate for probability of organic material forming, a probability of organic material forming single-cell life, probability of single-cell joining to create multi-cell systems, etc. etc.
And of course, you don't have to use the same numbers each time. You can go with the low end of the estimate on each variable, go with the high-end, or keep mixing them up. And you end up with results of highly improbable to highly probable. It's a totally useless equation, and the professor (Dr. Filipenko) said as much... mostly he taught it because someone inevitably asked "Is there intelligent life on other planets?"
<<< For the record, 10^99 - 10^23 = 10^99. >>>
You might want to work on your probability skills, Mr. Mathematics (and Sierra and Cerno). Granting, for the moment, the ludicrous figures in the original post, 1 in 10^99 chance on any given planet, with 10^23 planets, gives roughly a chance of 1 in 10^99/10^23 = 10^76 that it has happened once. (This isn't *exactly* correct - the exact answer is 1 - (1-10^-99)^(10^23). But it's a reasonably good estimate when the number of trials is small enough such that the odds of it happening multiple times are small.)
You do NOT get to make up random numbers and claim it proves your god.
I, however, get to format my FSTDT posts now. (Thanks, Yahweh!)
Mr. Mathematics, 10^99 - 10^23 = 10^99, can be considered almost correct; however, the only reason why your calculator displays the answer as '10^99' is because the actual precise answer would require too many floating point digits to process and display. The actual correct answer would read something like '9.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 x 10^98' (with 76 floating point digits, each a '9'), which rounds off close enough to 10^99 for the computer/calculator to simply output '10^99'
Well, the Drake equation is still pulling numbers from one's arse since the only number we know with much certainty is N* (rate of star formation, though Fp is getting better). The difference is it is a (hopefully) educated arse.
The real value of the Drake equation is to help people think clearly about the factors involved.
This quote, on the other hand, is just rubbish.
FASCINATING.
So just because life on earth is perfectly adapted to earth, doesn't mean other life wouldn't be adapted to other earths. Had the JIMProject gone off, we might even have found life on Juipiter's moons.
Life did not evolve by random chance. If I drop a ball, what are the chances that of all the possible directions it will go, it will in fact go down? If you know anything about gravity, you know that the direction of the dropped ball is not the result of random chance.
Somehow, I think this "argument" will come up again.
Something I wonder about there being life on other planets. Just because on earth life needs carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen to exists here , does that mean it would need to evolve that way on other planets? If evolution were to happen on some other planet, couldn't it evolve to where life needed completely different elements to survive? Like helium, nitrogen, and fluorine (I realize there are other things involved chemically, but this is just hypothetical)? There's alot of questions about life on other planets, and I personally think that the chance is a bit better than we might think.
“the total probability of our existance is 1:10^99″
What kind of time frame is this estimating?
I mean, you have a big number. If that probability is per billion years, and Earth is just over 3 billions years old, that’s three chances.
If it’s 1:10^99 per day, after 3 billion years it’s a lot more likely
And if it’s 1:10^99 per minute, it’s almost a certainty. It’s not like all the chemicals on Earth, in all Earth’s seas, stand very still and wait while THE chance of that day, year, era resolves.
However, Science hasn’t actually posted an agreed upon estimate of how life started. So there’s no realistic way to estimate the chances for or against it happening.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.