himoura

I honestly don't see how u can believe that when there is virtually zero evidence to back up that claim and literally mounds of it that would suggest just the opposite. how do u explain mars? I would strongly disagree with the notion that once life is set into motion it is difficult to destroy it. That's why I gave the ecosystem analogy. No one should ever have to maintain an ecosystem if what u are saying is true. It should find a way to survive on it's own. What you are proposing violates the second law of thermodynamics. If matter is constantly organizing itself into more complex forms then how come everything around us is constantly in a state of decay? So it becomes more complex as it's dying and falling apart? I kinda agree with the last part if what ur saying though. I am not saying miracles took place just that it's not chance and we can't explain it. What's wrong with saying "I don't know why". It just feels like science wants to pretend like we have it all figured out. It becomes a matter of pride and when that happens we all find our selves subscribing to things we know are not true

Randomness is just that. Randomness. There isnt one type of randomness for a card game and another for the universe. There is just randomness. That's why the poker analogy is completely applicable. If u feel u need mathematical proof of randomness then study quantum mechanics or go play some cards. The idea of the Earth colliding with another planet to form the moon is an excellent example. There are odds that dictate the chances of that happening the same as odds in a poker game dictate the probability of getting a royal flush. The only difference here is the actual value of the odds themselves. The problem with the "we just got really lucky" idea is that it stops after getting the flush and says... "see it can happen". The problem with that is the game keeps going. Just cuz u got lucky and got a royal flush doesn't mean the game is over. U have to keep playing and braving all of the "bad luck" scenarios. Science doesn't even consider all the multitudes of possibilities that could screw up that very small victory. Wrong again. I have tons of evidence and data. I have billions of poker hand histories and quantum mechanics. I haven't violated any forum rules. There is nothing wrong with my attitude. Why should I try to upload thousands and thousands of HH's to prove variance and trends when all this has already been proven? Why should I link to articles in quantum mechanics that relate to randomness? All this has already been done and proven long ago. I mean honestly go look it up for yourself. Trends exist. It's science. It's fact. Odds and randomness and trends are not in question here. If u dont agree with my analogy then that's fine but the data I'm usin is readily available and not in dispute. It's only the application of this data which is being disputed. Eventually it will become obvious that this application is logical and correct. Besides if I could just link to a more credible authority that would put ur mind at ease then it wouldn't be a new theory now would it? This is a new application of existing, proven science.. The work has already been done... I just pushed it in an obvious direction.

@pantheory It's called the "process" of evolution for a reason. It's a "process". It's not sentient and it does not have a will. But if ur gonna stand here in front of the world and say it does then congratulations. U just invented yourself a god. I am not saying evolution isn't possible. I am saying it's not possible to have happened as a result of chance. The only reason science even holds onto this stupid idea of accidental life is because there is no alternative. Well that's not good enough anymore. Simple. For any outcome in poker there are odds that dictate the likelyhood of those outcomes. Our universe is no different. If u believe our system exists as a result of chance then there are odds that will dictate every possible outcome. There ya go.

I have more evidence to back up my claims then anything else thats ever been researched. i have the hand histories of billions upon billions of poker games. thats whats so funny about people like you jumping on here and just saying this is speculative and dismissing it. variance is real. trends are real. it can be easily quatified and measured. i literally have loads upon loads of data to pull from. you guys can disagree all you want but as far as i can tell... this idea has never been explored by science. we all just assume this earth and the life upon it happened by chance. wow really? no one really looks at that and says... "what exactly are the odds of something like this happening?" so despite the fact you are offering zero evidence outside the fact that the earth is here i am just supposed to swallow that pill? no questioning at all? to my knowledge no one has ever taken the time line theory and applied it in the inverse. no thanks i think you mean to say.. .anything you dont agree with goes in speculative. i have plenty of evidence and data supporting my claim. more then any other subject that has ever been researched. billions of hand histories. i totally expected this. i just didnt expect a mod to move this into speculative. thats garbage. by that definition every theory that has ever been proposed is speculative. i never said circumstances can create order. you are just flat wrong in almost everything you said. i will explain quickly why you are wrong in your last statement about the odds of life existing to begin with... before the big bang... is NOTHING. there is no timeline because there is no fourth dimension. we dont even know if randomness exists before the bang. whatever happened before the bang happened outside the laws of physics so technically you cant even comment on it. we have no way to even theorize about it. pretty much every text book i have ever read that isnt religious @bignose I have listed tons of facts and evidence ur just choosing to ignore it all.

thats bull

Theory of Variance and the Existence of Life on Earth By Shawn Michael Ahearn Copyright 08/18/2011 The idea that life on Earth exists as a result of chance is absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable. I will use a few analogies to further explain this statement. Take the game of Poker for example. Every good Poker player knows that you can't win every game. Good Poker players are those who can minimize their losses in periods of downswing and maximize profit in periods of upswing. By downswing and upswing I mean periods in which a player can experience great losing or winning streaks. A good Poker player is defined as one who can average more wins than losses, thus creating a net gain. A card game like Poker is very chaotic and unpredictable. Some of the best players in the world will tell you that they have gone on losing streaks that can last a month or longer. Imagine that for a moment if you will. Imagine your one of the greatest Poker players in the world and you go on a losing streak that lasts for over a month. No matter how good the player may be scenarios keep falling on the table that simply make it impossible to win. In the poker world we call this "variance", and the unwinnable hands "bad beats". As painful as this sounds it happens a lot more than one would think. Now let's relate the plight of our planet to a game of poker. Let us say that the Earth's ability to support life is tantamount to winning in Poker. So basically the Earth has been on a winning streak for almost 4.5 billion years. In other words our Earth has never suffered a "bad beat". That is absolutely ridiculous. If life is the result of chance then losing is inevitable. The odds do not support such a massive winning streak. Chance will always lean towards chaos and not towards order. I have heard a theory that basically states that the odds of life coming into existence by accident are not that unreasonable if you stretch the time line out far enough. It basically states that given a long enough time line it will eventually happen. This is wrong for three very specific reasons. § The aftermath of an explosion has never produced order, only chaos. § We have no knowledge of what transpired before the big bang. What we do know is that explosions do not occur randomly for no reason; something has to set them off. § The idea that the Earth can somehow maintain the conditions necessary to support life for 4.5 billion years as a result of "good luck" is completely unacceptable. We know the full time line of our universe is around 13 billion years because of Hubble's red shift measurements. This means the time line can only be stretched so far, it is finite. Let's just say for arguments sake that life did come into existence by chance (although cosmologically speaking this is impossible). We now have life on planet Earth and a time line of around 4.5 billion years. I would postulate that a time line of 4.5 billion years is more than adequate to support the odds of something happening that would ruin the Earths ability to support life permanently. The odds of any number of scenarios that would make life on Earth permanently unsustainable are great; far greater than life not only existing as a result of chance, but perpetuating itself completely unassisted. So far this has never happened. This Earth has never experienced a catastrophe so great that its ability to support life has been completely compromised. Even in the greatest cataclysms of our past some small vestiges of life survive. To say that our planets ability to continue to support life as a consequence of good luck just seems outlandish. The odds do not support such a notion. The time line is 4.5 billion years. Take the Time Line Theory and apply it in the inverse and you will see that the odds are much more likely that an event will transpire that will make life on planet Earth permanently unsustainable. Why has this not happened yet? Below I have listed a few guidelines that I feel help support this idea. § Our Universe is chaotic by nature and not orderly § Chance will always favor chaos over order § Order can only be created and exists as a result of its circumstances § When compared, the odds of any number of scenarios that could permanently destroy our planets ability to support life far exceed the odds of nothing happening If you look at the other systems in our universe what do you find? Complete chaos. You have entire galaxies that are spinning inevitably into super massive black holes or into each other. You will find planets whose elliptical orbits are so exaggerated they are literally scorched by their sun every time they pass. The set of conditions that must be met in order for a planet to support life are truly staggering. A planet must be a certain distance from its sun. It has to have water. It must have a moon type satellite to pull the tides. It has to be a certain size. It has to have the right atmosphere. The list goes on and on and on. But yet science would have us believe that we just got really lucky and that luck continues to provide us with the perfect conditions to support life to this very day. This explanation does not make sense when looked at through the lens of the very simple poker analogy I mentioned earlier. Nothing in our vast universe is that lucky. It just doesn't work that way. Eventually something will happen to make conditions on Earth completely unsustainable. We still cannot even explain the existence of the moon. Without our moon life could not exist on earth. What are the odds a chunk of rock exactly the right size would come to orbit our Earth in just such an ideal way? The odds are solidly against it. Now compound that along with all of the other, "million to one" type situations that had to take place in order for our ecosystem to exist as it has for 4.5 billion years. You will see that the idea of life existing on Earth as a result of chance just doesn't hold water at all. If you have any further doubts a few rounds of poker will satisfy them very quickly. When I was in high school biology class we had a project where we were instructed to build an ecosystem with a variety of different species and plants. It was a pretty difficult project. We cut the glass ourselves and caulked the pieces together with silicone. We had running water and soil for the plants. We also had a light and would periodically feed the life inside the system. One thing we all realized very quickly is that if we did not maintain this system ourselves it would quickly fall apart. Has anyone ever built a completely self-sustaining ecosystem devoid of any maintenance? If they have then think about what an accomplishment that would be. Yet we are expected to believe that our perfect ecosystem, our perfect earth, has been providing us with an environment ideal for supporting life for at least 4.5 billion years as a result of a "cosmic roll of the dice"? This notion is simply preposterous and unacceptable. The planet has of course experienced events that make life difficult to be sure, but it always seems to bounce back. No matter how devastating the event our Earth somehow finds a way to not only recover, but continue maintaining conditions that are ideal for supporting life. In the terms of the Poker analogy, the Earth never goes bust. I would also postulate that if life is discovered in other systems on other planets this theory will only be exacerbated. If life could happen just as a sheer coincidence then what are the odds of it happening again? What are the odds of another planet just like our own sustaining life in similar fashion for 4.5 billion years? Many scientists now believe there has to be life elsewhere in the universe because of the sheer number of systems and galaxies. If that is true then the odds continue to increase exponentially. Other systems will be experiencing impossible "winning streaks" just like our own.