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.”
>>You can get RNA from a LIVING creature?
But evidently not in the laboratory... no matter how hard they pray to the STEM gods!
>>not in the laboratory
not FROM NONLIVING ELEMENTS in the laboratory
[[What did THEY ‘evolve’ from?]]
Or into lol-
Sorry,my contention is still-——>> Were there no matter, there would be no time...
it’s mind over matter- if you don’t mind it don’t matter
>>Sorry,my contention is still
Matter did not exist before the formation of light nuclei, but Time still passed.
“1 second - 3 minutes - Formation of light nuclei”
http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/cosmology/early_universe
>>Were there no matter, there would be no time...
Anyhow, the point is moot since we’re living in a universe where E=mc2, and T progresses relative to E in the inertial frame(s) in which is it observed.
What happens to T as E increases and approaches infinity?
But even you don't claim it's a reasonable demand, because you well know it's not.
"Mathematical modeling" might be appropriate & doable in some cases (rocket science comes to mind) but not in Darwin's basic evolution theory, at least so far as I've ever heard.
usconservative: "Now, does evolution happen?
YES. It does.
We need only look at our own feet and see how our little toes have been shrinking over time."
So, even you acknowledge our toes may once have been longer and more useful for climbing in trees, right?
A little like some other primates we might mention, right?
usconservative: "What evolutionists claim is that we (mankind) crawled out of the sea one day and we evolved from that.
That's impossible.
There are zero documented and scientifically proven of cases where one species evolved into another.
It just didn't happen."
But of course there are, and wolves to dogs are just one example -- dogs are a new species evolved from wolves in a very short time period because of human interventions.
Natural selection normally would take much longer.
And there are many examples in nature -- consider zebras which have several breeds, sub-species and species some of which do not normally interbreed.
African & Indian elephants are even further separated to the point where they physically cannot interbreed, making them separate genera in the elephant family.
As for what first crawled out on land some 400+ million years ago, the fossil record does show changes over many millions of years eventually producing mammal-like creatures, some of whom seemed to live in trees.
So science naturally connects the dots, but you may wish not to, and that's your right so long as you don't claim your own beliefs are scientific.
usconservative: "How amongst the hundreds of billions and billions and billions (etc.. etc.. etc..) of combinations of possibilities in the universe did it all come together at just the right moment in time for the genetics of mankind to come together?
My point in asking the question of my friends who missed it (as you did) is that it's impossible to calculate."
So you admit your demand was impossible?
Fine.
And yet it happened, so such mathematical models are unnecessary, especially if, as I believe, it happened because God intended it.
usconservative: "If it's impossible to calculate, how can science, which relies heavily on data including math, determine we "evolved" from some goo that crawled out of the ocean?"
So the root of your problem is you don't understand science.
In strict scientific terms Darwin's basic evolution idea is a confirmed hypothesis, making it a theory.
Descent with modifications and natural selection are observed facts, while speculations regarding origins of life are still just that -- speculations, not fact, not theory, not even testable hypotheses for the most part.
Yes, some of those ideas are very interesting, but nobody is required to believe a word of it.
usconservative: "There has to be an intelligence behind the creation of mankind and all that we see.
Of that there is no doubt in my mind.
There is no other explanation that makes sense in any way to me."
Agreed, but there is no possible way for us to say where God's natural laws were perfectly adequate to produce what we see today, and where they instead required His supernatural interventions to make them happen.
I think most of what we see He accomplished naturally, but am willing to consider if His creations were not fully adequate to accomplish some of His purposes.
But after due consideration, I'd mostly reject that possibility.
It's basic evolution theory based on observed descent with modifications and natural selection.
Elsie: "Most such are harmless or harmful, but a small number helpful in natural DE-selection."
Just remember, if you are an animal on the plains of Africa, you don't need to be the fastest animal around, you only need to be faster than your slowest prey or herd-mate.
That's natural selection, or de-selection, depending on your point of view.
There again for the benefit of those who claim "no transitional forms".
Yes, sadly, it often demonstrates that people can look the facts straight in the face (in this case literally) and not see them.
Does that include Elsie?
I moved no posts, goal or otherwise.
My opinions here go by the name "theistic evolutionism" meaning I believe God intended and made whatever we see, even where natural explanations seem adequate.
That's because "nature's laws" are God's laws, imho.
You disagree?
Some of "the because" are explanations which can never be observed and are therefore classified as theory, not fact.
As confirmed theory, basic evolution is far beyond mere postulation or unconfirmed hypotheses, though many of those do exist in the scientific realm which includes evolution.
For example, speculations regarding origins of life fall into such categories as "postulate", "hypothesis" and S.W.A.G. -- scientific wild *ssed guess.
But your original question was for evidence of environmental changes, and I merely observed that every level of geological strata tells us something different was going on at that time, and careful examinations can tell us much about what those changes were.
You disagree?
Take your time.
Elsie: "Giant shrimp and military intelligence come to mind. "
Brilliant! Just brilliant!
Elsie: "assumptions... "
Yes, the fewer words, the better. That's the ticket!
Elsie: "predictions,
OOOoooh! I want to know some of these!"
Start here.
But there is much more.
Elsie: "Why are they called 'transitional' when NO transition has been seen?
"E" puts similar things together and then BOLDLY asserts that one CAME from the other."
No. The exact relationships are unknown, except that some came before others and are therefore likely candidates for transitional ancestors.
What's certain is that forms themselves did change over time.
Occam's razor "de-selects" ideas that seem unnecessarily complicated.
Hence, transitional forms.
Elsie: "I think I've discovered the problem in this thread..."
I'd say it's your witticisms are less than.
Elsie: "An appeal to authority. Whoda thunk..."
No "appeal", simple recognition.
Elsie, of course, appeals to no authority but your own, right?
Thanks for admitting this...
Evolution: Mike, the headless chicken. Friuta, CO
Nothing to "admit".
The similarities & time-line tell us they must be closely related and transitioning from more ape-like to more human-like.
But except with Neanderthals, there's no data to tell us exactly how closely or distantly related they were.
Neanderthal DNA tells us they were not a separate species, but rather a sub-species of humans who did, on occasion, interbreed with our human ancestors.
>>the root of your problem is you don’t understand science.
Lol. That’s like the pretentious pot (who can’t articulate an understanding for why the abiogenesis of RNA/DNA is of substantial practical importance to the thread subject) calling the kettle black.
>>I believe God intended and made whatever we see
So God made the abomination of Nature we see in Romans chapter 1, did He?
MUST be?
really??
Neanderthal DNA tells us they were not a separate species, but rather a sub-species of humans who did, on occasion, interbreed with our human ancestors.
And this answer does not satisfy you because of what, exactly?
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.