Are we there yet? Friday, 10 September 2010 - 16:40
Publications
Comments

Proof of Supreme Being?

A little bit ago, Stu did the math for us:

“3 out of 4 Stars are in binary systems (3/4) and we can not exist in a binary system from the amount of radiation and the variation of the habitual zone. Only a small portion of a solar system, less than 10%, is in the “Goldie Locks Zone” where life has a chance (1/10). Only 2 object in our solar system have flowing liquid of the 154 planet and satellites that are known (1/77). Only one planet has a large moon to protect  it and keep it’s geology active (1/8). Out of all the species that are on the Earth (right now there are 3-30 million) only one is intelligent and self-aware  or at least claims to be (on the low end it is 1/3,000,000,000). We could get into the odds of life existing (1%) and the odds that it is intelligent (1%), or the odds of intelligent life existing at the same time as moon being able to eclipse the Sun (moves 1” away a year), but that of all of this stars that are singular, there is a rocky planet, that has a moon, that is large, that  it is in the Gold Locks Zone, that has flowing liquid, and has enough species’ to produce intelligent life.

Stars Zone Liquid Planet Speices
1/4 1/10 1/77 3/8 1/3,000,000

(3/4) * (1/10) * (1/77) * (3/8) * (1/3,000,000) = 4.06 ^-11

Or a  0.00000000406% chance of intelligent life happening. “

  • Share/Bookmark

7 Comments to "Proof of Supreme Being?"

  1. May 18, 2010 - 2:03 pm | Permalink

    I’m tempted to try to be funny and say what luck, but I don’t really believe in luck. I do believe that God planned us and for us very carefullly….(“fearfully and wonderfully made” and all that…) I found this information both beautiful and fascinating.

    captcha words: embarrassing protocol
    With word choices like that, how can I resist attempting a haiku?

    Lack of protocol
    Proves to be embarrassing
    In some instances

  2. John McDonell's Gravatar John McDonell
    May 18, 2010 - 5:36 pm | Permalink

    All this seems right,bu there is a mind boggling (scientific-chemistry) problem, that I’ve never heard being addressed.

    All living beings are made from organic chemicals, The base of all organic chemicals is carbon. Where does this carbon come from? All planets do not have carbon in a basic structure of Si (silicon) – yes; iron, zinc, nickel etc – yes; even perhaps sulfur, hydrogen and oxygen, but CARBON!

    There is much carbon from (living + dead) objects + a few diamonds. This is where the present ‘theories’ get strange IMO. Diamonds come from carbon under extreme pressure and heat.

    Bit that only says how diamonds are formed, but it does not answer, even conjecture about where this carbon comes from.

    Perhaps a diamond-filled asteroid plowed into ancient earth which was a ball of rocks, then.

    Now what is the probability of organic life even ‘existing’?

  3. Kristi's Gravatar Kristi
    May 18, 2010 - 5:49 pm | Permalink

    All this seems right,bu there is a mind boggling (scientific-chemistry) problem, that I’ve never heard being addressed.All living beings are made from organic chemicals,The base of all organic chemicals is carbon.Where does this carbon come from? All planets do not have carbon in a basic structure of Si (silicon) – yes; iron, zinc, nickel etc – yes; even perhaps sulfur, hydrogen and oxygen, but CARBON!There is much carbon from (living+ dead) objects + a few diamonds.This is where the present ‘theories’ get strange IMO.Diamonds come from carbon under extreme pressure and heat.Bit that only says how diamonds are formed,but it does not answer, even conjecture about where this carbon comes from.Perhaps a diamond-filled asteroid plowed into ancient earth which was a ball of rocks, then.Now what is the probability of organic life even ‘existing’?

    wow.

  4. Stu's Gravatar Stu
    May 18, 2010 - 9:02 pm | Permalink

    Now what is the probability of organic life even ‘existing’?

    Carbon is a natural element made in the sun… actually the destruction of the sun.

    Oh and it’s everywhere….
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon

  5. the cape's Gravatar the cape
    May 18, 2010 - 11:37 pm | Permalink

    Stu is nothingmore then a neutral B meson.

  6. Stu's Gravatar Stu
    May 19, 2010 - 8:03 am | Permalink

    Stu is nothingmore then a neutral B meson.

    I’m strange, “charm”ing and “quark”y…. So I do qualify.

  7. John McDonell's Gravatar John McDonell
    May 19, 2010 - 11:14 pm | Permalink

    thanks very much for the wikipedia article, Stu = especially about formation among the stars (after the Big Bang),. I guess I understand The Big Bang as a single creation event, and a creation as several distinct stages is a foreign concept. Doug used to talk about timespace. It is so difficult

Comments are closed.