Posted on 06/15/2017 12:50:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
Zero times anything is zero. The odds of life just happening by chance are zero.
This universe just springing into being by chance is impossible. It takes a leap of blind faith to believe in evolution, unguided or guided. Of course, there are tiny changes within kinds. It seems to me usually when the evolutionists make their case, they point to these tiny changes.
The analogies to the improbability of evolution by a random process are endless.
A hurricane blows through a junkyard and assembles a fully functioning 747 jet.
Scrabble pieces are randomly spilled out on the board, and they spell out the Declaration of Independence word for word. (Source: Dr. Stephen Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt).
A monkey sits at a typewriter and types thousands of pages. He types out word for word, with no mistakes, the entire works of Shakespeare.
The odds against our universe, of the earth, of the creation, to have just come into being with no intelligent design behind the grand scheme are greater than all of these impossible scenarios.
Forget the works of Shakespeare. What are the odds of a monkey randomly typing away simply spelling the 9-letter word “evolution” by chance? That doesn’t sound too hard, does it?
Dr. Scott M. Huse, B.S., M.S., M.R.E., Th.D., Ph.D., who holds graduate degrees in computer science, geology, and theology, wrote a book about creation/evolution back in the early 1980s, The Collapse of Evolution. Huse has done extensive study on these questions of random probability. I had the privilege of interviewing him about it for Dr. D. James Kennedy’s television special, “The Case for Creation” (1988). It was a type of Scopes Trial in reverse---filmed on location in Tennessee, in the very courtroom where the 1925 monkey trial took place.
Later, Huse created a computer program to see what are the odds of a monkey typing the word “evolution”? He notes that the odds are 1 in 5.4 trillion, which statistically is the same thing as zero. Any casino that offered such horrible odds would lose customers quickly, because no one would ever win. Forgive my bluntness, but the suckers have to win something before they start losing big.
Here’s what Scott told me in an email: “The typical personal computer keyboard has 104 keys, most of which are not letters from the alphabet. However, if we ignore that fact and say the monkey can only hit keys that are letters of the alphabet, he has a one in twenty-six chance of hitting the correct letter each time.
“Of course, he has to hit them in the correct sequence as well: E then V then O, etc. Twenty-six to the power of nine (the number of letters in the word “evolution”) equals 5,429,503,678,976.
“So, the odds of him accidentally typing just the 9-letter word ‘evolution’ are about 1 in about 5.4 trillion …From a purely mathematical standpoint, the bewildering complexity of even the most basic organic molecules [which are much more complicated than a nine-letter word] completely rules out the possibility of life originating by mere chance.”
Take just one aspect of life---amino acids and protein cells. Dr. Stephen Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science at Cambridge University. In his New York Times bestselling book, Darwin’s Doubt (2013), Meyer points out that “the probability of attaining a correct sequence [of amino acids to build a protein molecule] by random search would roughly equal the probability of a blind spaceman finding a single marked atom by chance among all the atoms in the Milky Way galaxy---on its face clearly not a likely outcome.” (p. 183)
And this is just one aspect of life, the most basic building-block. In Meyer’s book, he cites the work of engineer-turned-molecular-biologist, Dr. Douglas Axe, who has since written the book, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed (2016).
In the interview I did with Scott Huse long ago, he noted, “The probability of life originating through mere random processes, as evolutionists contend, really honestly, is about zero…. If you consider probability statistics, it exposes the naiveté and the foolishness, really, of the evolutionary viewpoint.”
Dr. Charles Thaxton was another guest on that classic television special from 1988. He is a scientist who notes that life is so complex, the chances of it arising by mere chance is virtually impossible. Thaxton, now with the Discovery Institute, has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, and a post-doctorate degree in molecular biology and a Harvard post-doctorate in the history and philosophy of science.
Thaxton notes, “I’d say in my years of study, the amazing thing is the utter complexity of living things….Most scientists would readily grant that however life happened, it did not happen by chance.”
The whole creation points to the Creator. Huse sums up the whole point: “Simply put, a watch has a watchmaker and we have a Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ.”
macroevolution is impossible mathematically, chemically, thermodynamically- biologically- and that lateral gene transference has no real world higher species examples- symbiotic parasitic infections are not gene transference- but they conveniently ignored all those facts. The world’s top mathemeticians held several symposiums proving that macroevoltuion is so far beyond the upper probability limits that it is impossible- not by a little, but by such a significant amount that the hypothesis of macroevolution is not possible-
False - it just deals with it thus:
“This step still remains unverified to science as of this writing.”
That’s not really dealing with it. But anyway “dealing with it” is my words and open to about a hundred different interpretations.
The point is, it’s not part of the theory, just as what banged, how it banged or why it banged isn’t part of the Big Bang Theory (not talking about the TV show).
>>That’s not really dealing with it.
They deal with it by propping up the model with the usual facsimile of “a miracle happens here”.
Odd how, even with all our STEM, our technocratic self-worshiping culture can’t produce an RNA molecule from non-living chemical raw materials that can independently replicate itself into identical RNA molecules that sustain the LIVING process and produce multiple generations.
>>how it banged
That is covered in the quantum cosmology - but the ultimate origin of E remains a mystery.
Not really. Everything AFTER t=0 is covered... but t=0 (how, why, what banged) is not covered.
Don’t argue with me about it. Take it up with Alan Guth. He says it all the time.
>>but t=0 (how, why, what banged) is not covered.
At T=0 the universe popped into existence like a bubble from another universe.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Universe+is+a+bubble
But even though that model covers T=0 (for the universe the modelers live in), it still leaves the ultimate origin of E a mystery.
At T=0 the universe popped into existence like a bubble from another universe.
>>but it’s not really part of standard cosmology.
“Most often the model also sees inflation producing a proliferation of universes, a multiverse filled with a cornucopia of realities.”
I actually am partial to that idea but you know as well as I do that “a proliferation of universes” is not part of standard cosmology, and Guth says so himself, even though he, like Linde, Greene and others are also partial to the concept of “eternal inflation”. But inflation itself is still (sadly) lacking the polarizations to finally verify it. I’m hoping the newer telescopes will fix that.
"Guth's inflationary theory predicted."
Inflation is part of the standard cosmology. Guth's "multiverse" is just a model for inflation.
In the first 10-34 seconds or so of the universe's history, it underwent a brief period of extremely fast expansion, known as inflation. This period smoothed out the universe's original lumpiness and left it with the homogeneity and isotropy we see today. Quantum mechanical fluctuations during this process were imprinted on the universe as density fluctuations, which later seeded the formation of structure.
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/CosmologyEssays/The_Standard_Cosmology.html
“You intellectual pygmies are so predictable.”
You won’t score any points in the discussion with name calling, which is usually an excuse for failing to make your point. Save your popcorn for the ball game.
Ok. You win.
Ok. But I’m not much of a fan of the multiverse miracle explanation - which still doesn’t address the ultimate miracle origin of E as well as John 1:1 does.
his point was pretty clear to me- life from nothing has hurdles so tall they can’t be crossed naturally-
sorry- meant life from non life- not life from nothing
“nge is to show how you create life from that which is non-life”
GOD did it. Now can we all go home?
Tell the same to Trump, then come back later and tell me who's winning. The Daily Win / The Daily Battle, DAY 140. ARCHIVE #001 (courtesy of FReeper Lazamataz) Sorry, but that maxim as a rule simply doesn't fly anymore.
See you in the arena.
Bro better come prepared with more than just mocked-up "global warming"-style artificial computer models fed with the fertile imaginations of self-important grant-grubbers to back him up.
Absent evidence based in good science it'll be a bullshit caller's checkmate.
Care to take your own stab at trying to hold forth on what scientific evidence exists that supports abiogensis?
FReegards!
EVOLUTION IS A Fact, if NOT you would still be in the primordial soup, with Your Primal Screem..That is not so say we evolved from MONKEYS, but EVOLUTION is a fact..
The Big Five Mass Extinctions:
End Ordovician, 444 million years ago, 86% of species lost
— Graptolite 2-3 cm length
Late Devonian, 375 million years ago, 75% of species lost
— Trilobite, 5 cm length
End Permian, 251 million years ago, 96% of species lost
— Tabulate coral, 5 CM
End Triassic, 200 million years ago, 80% of species lost
— Conodont teeth 1 mm
End Cretaceous, 66 million years ago, 76% of all species lost
— Ammonite 15 cm length
Humans had NOTHING to do with this! Heh heh
“A monkey sits at a typewriter and types thousands of pages.”
I admire this monkeys evolved use of tools. Where did he get the typewriter?
I think this monkey writes a column for the New York Times.
Strictly speaking, no science is ever fully "settled".
All ideas & facts are subject to falsification at any time by new data or better ideas.
That's a key condition making natural-science fundamentally different from any religion.
As for your Myers FRiend, I'll repeat my guess that most or all of those arguments have been posted & debated at length on these threads.
Unless you know of some great new idea that somehow escaped us so far?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.