Tis will knock your socks off!

PROOF: CHANCES OF LIFE ON MARS BETTER THAN
99.999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999%

I use two initially convenient objects:
(a) manta ray with tail

(b) fish statue

Here is the proof that probability that they are "simply rocks" is less
than 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 !

(a)
Lets do some math, using the "manta ray with tail" picture.
Lets assume that there is 10,000,000,000 rocks that can be considered
for fossils /fossil like rocks/ in the area covered by rovers /this is more than 100 per square meter./
Lets assume that each of them has a small rock attached, which will
play the beginning of the "tail".

Lets assume that there is 1/100 chance that small rock has an another
small rock attached to the right side of it and having the right size, so
that it forms next bone of the tail. A so on, and so forth. :)
Since the "tail" has 12 bones, expected number of existing in the
area "rock stingrays" will be 1/1,000,000,000,000. /12=22-10/
Assume that rovers photograph everyone of them, that exists.

We must conclude based on the assumptions and their consequences,
that chances of us to have this existing picture if the object were of
nonbiologial origin, would be less than 10 in pover -12, which is
thousand times less than 1 in 1,000,000,000


(b)
Lets assume, that probability of photographing of fish like rock
on Mars is 1, and that there is 1,000 of them in the rovers covered area.
Now, let us focus on the string of similar dots leading to the fish
tail. There is 7 of them.
Lets assume that chances that such line on the simple rock has one
extra dot are 1 in 100. After all, I've never seen even three dots
like this after viewing probably not less than 10,000 rocks /which corresponds to 2 additions/.
The chances we would have a photo of the fish like rock would be than
10 in power -9. /9=12-3/ which is 1 in 1,000,000,000 as expected.

Whichever way you slice it, chances that we would have pictures we now
have if "they all are rocks" theory were correct, are negligible.

Since probabilities do multiply here, chances that we did NOT have
life on Mars are proven to be less than 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000

We are going to use the water pipe object now:
(c)

The subobjects we will consider on the water pipe picture are the water string, the pipe, the number 3, and the number 6.
Let us use rare object consideration, in oder to analyze that picture.
A rare object is one that has been observed only ones on the rover pictures.The measured frequency of its appearance on a particular picture is 1/20000 or so.
To be really on the safe side, we will estimate the probability
of its appearance on a particular picture as 1/100.
Now, the probability of four such objects appearing on particular picture,
would be 1/1,000,000
The probability of those objects appearing at particular area, of a size of 1% of the picture,
would be lower by another 1,000,000 times, 1/1,000,000,000,000 .

For those objects to be consistently oriented and attached, chances drop at least another 1,000,000 times, to 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000


Taking into account (a), (b), and (c), we must conclude that chances to observe those three objects if "they are all rocks" theory were true, would be less than
1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Which means that chances of life having existed on Mars are better than
99.999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999%

8) 8) :P

Well I don't know about the maths but I love the fish E.S. noone has disagreed with you so what are the odds you are right :)

The odds I am right on this? 100% is a conservative estimate.

For millions of years all creaters on Earth, including humans, have been relying on their eyes for truthful representation of the world.

Now the "science" idiots are claiming that we can not rely on our eyes, only on their "scientific" BS. The chances that they are right are big ZERO.


e :P s

This probabilistic claim of ES's was crisply dismantled in 17 posts at another forum, here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=90115

Unfortunately you will need to register at that particular site to read the refutations, as the thread ES started was diverted to this particular forum, one which is closed to the general public because it consists of threads deemed to be "content-free." :blush:

Spongy,

You apparently do not think for yourself. So any fool can play a god to you.

ES

Extra, now you are being incoherent.

Who, supposedly, is the fool playing "God" to me? That would be quite surprising, considering that I am an atheist.

Your probability estimates are filled with ridiculous false premises. Check your premises (assuming you really are serious).

-----------------------------------

With respect to Saturn, Spongy says: They're rings. Not manta rays with tails.

Who, supposedly, is the fool playing "God" to me? That would be quite surprising, considering that I am an atheist.>>

This is what happens to the atheists:
they follow some fool like he is god, or chase their own tail trying to be be the god to himself


Spongy thanks for the link but I am not that keen to prove E.S wrong or right I will leave that to those who sustain their world by dogmatic and inviolable rules after all my name is Ixt .:)

Ixt,

Do you have 3D glasses?

You'll need them!!!!!!!!!

ES


No E.S. I don't have any 3D glasses not something I have ever considered before the mars pics but it would be useful now .
Well I assume it would as I can't see the 3D pics I dont know for sure.:)

I bought mine on internet for less than $3.

Some pictures are stunning, I will post them on my site soon.

Everyjne must buy the glasses!!!!

ES

Hiya ES and others

Yeah, I too find that "eagle ray" kinda fscinating. ES, I enjoy your posts (mostly)even though I am one of those who are into "rational skepticism" and "scientific inquiry" bigtime.

And as a mathematician (albeit unemployed) I'm not at all offended by your "proof" above... I've seen far weirder things written by people who should know better, believe me!!! But I WILL check out Spongie's link, just 'cos I do love that stuff. For me, though, Mathematics is a very creative, beautiful discipline, not at all about dogma.

-------Martin M :-)

Martin,

on my website I have more refined version of the proof.

Here is a mathematical part of it, that I would love you opinion on:

----------------------------------------
Estimation of probability of the hypothesis, based on the probability
this hypothesis assignes to the observation which has been actually realized:

A^ stands for the set of all possible observations,
A for observation, a member of A^
H^ stands for the full set of mutually excluding hypotheses, that cover all possibilities;
one and exactly one of them is correct.
H for hypothesis, a member of H^
P(A) stands for probability of A,
P(A|H) for probability of A under hypothesis H,
P(H|A) for probability of hypothesis H if A realized,
P(H) for probability of hypothesis H
P(A,H) stands for the truth function on (A^ x H^)
P(A,H) =1 if both A and H correspond to the real world.
P(A,H) =0 otherwise.

[definition]
P(A,H) == P(A) * P(H|A) == P(H) * P(A|H)

[lemma]
If A realized, P(A) = 1 .

Consider case when H is the correct hypothesis Ha.
P(A,Ha)=1

Using definition
1 == P(A) * P(Ha|A), which is possible only if both P(A)=1 and P(Ha|A)=1

P(A)=1 is proven [x]

[theorem]
If A realized, P(H|A) is less or equal P(A|H)

Using definition and lemma,
P(H|A) = P(H) * P(A|H)
Since P(H)

The theorem is proven [x]

---------------------------------
What do you think?

Best,

ES


Sorry, at the end should read:

Since P(H)

ES

Funny, HTML interpreter kicks in :D

at the end should read:

Since P(H) less or equal 1


ES