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.”
Time for me to wax poetic...
Nowhere does the Bible say the Earth is 6,000 years old.
It does speak of days of creation, but does not tell us how long those days were in today's time frames.
Mechanicos quoted 2 Peter 3:8, but the Old Testament is even clearer:
Psalm 90:4 "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night."
The Psalmist tells us a thousand years to God can be as a day, or as a "watch", maybe four hours, which is it?
His point is such time periods are indeterminate, indeed irrelevant in God's eyes.
So, in this case there need be no direct conflict between observations of science and revelations from the Bible.
DungeonMaster: "Creation is a miracle per the bible so they must conflict."
The Bible tells us God created, but does not tell us how.
Science can suggest some of the "how", assuming natural explanations for natural processes.
That's it.
I confess to being somewhat slow witted.
Say what?
All visible changes to creatures are reflections of changes in their DNA, some changes very minor, others catastrophic.
So I'm guessing you meant to say something else?
Wrong again.
Strictly defined, there's no "belief" in science, no "faith", not even "truth".
Instead, science deals in observations (facts) and explanations (hypotheses) some of them confirmed enough to be accepted as theory, or even law.
But all remain forever subject to falsification by new data or better ideas.
It's one thing making science fundamentally different from any religion.
Another is the methodological assumption of naturalism -- only natural explanations for natural processes are accepted as science.
The supernatural & metaphysical are beyond the scope of natural-science.
But your "mocking" is misdirected and ineffective.
You're firing blanks, FRiend.
As for your "WHERE", that's easy: The Bible tells us some of the supernatural history of Earth, science something of its natural history.
Because you say "yes", I'm pretty certain the correct answer would be "no".
However, I still don't "get" either your question or proposed answer.
You seem to wish to wield the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a weapon against evolution theory.
Of course I disagree and think I've mentioned already the analogy of a chemical reaction chamber, where engineers insert various raw materials, control temperatures & pressures to produce some useful finished product.
Do you understand the concept?
In a reaction chamber the 2nd law is not negated and order is increased.
Now, FRiend, simply think of the Earth as God's reaction chamber and the whole issue -- poof! -- disappears.
You disagree?
I totally reject your premise here, so your "then" is nonsensical.
Heartlander: "The scientists I quoted/paraphrased are describing the worldview one must adopt to except our creation from mindlessness…"
More nonsense.
I don't know if there are natural explanations for what you here identify, but it's irrelevant.
We are what we are now because that's what God originally intended.
Thank you for that post!
Please see post 439.
>>You seem to wish to wield the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a weapon against evolution theory.
No, I wish you to tell us how “compexifying” relates to entropy.
>> literal 24 hour DAYS
Measured in whose inertial frame?
Einstein’s Special Relativity exists.
So does ignorance of it along with the accompanying psychosis of wilful ignorance.
“Fallible an uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others...”
Wax on, wax off.
Photosynthesis complexifys a system without breaking the second law and without invoking miraculous intervention.
How does that relate to entropy and how is it possible?
that’s ok i used to be fast, now I’m only halfast (gotta sound it out for the joke to work)
It would be the opposite -- it's what engineers do in a chemical reaction chamber, add raw materials, control heat, temperature & other environmental variables, produce a more complex finished product -- "complexify", get it?
I merely posit that Earth is God's reaction chamber.
Should be no big mystery about it.
You disagree?
[[it’s what engineers do in a chemical reaction chamber, add raw materials, control heat, temperature & other environmental variables, produce a more complex finished product]]
Intelligent design in other words
Sure, you can read it that way, but I don't think it's necessary.
Both the Old Testament (Psalms) and New (James) make clear that time from God's perspective is quite different from our perspective.
That satisfies me entirely.
But not you?
Are you a biology instructor asking your students to feed back information from last night's homework?
Or is there some larger point you wish to make?
If so, why not just make it?
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.