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.”
The environment doesn't have to change for competition over the resources therein to ensue.
Let the games begin!
This is just a long winded rehash of the first mover theory put forth by St Thomas Aqinss.
No change or movement can happen without some outside force acting on it.. Ergo if you follow a chain of events back far enough you eventually come to the first mover... God.
Change itself is evidence of God.
I don’t, and have never understood how so many people think evolution and creation are in conflict... They are not.
As the philosopher David Hume argued, the predictive powers of induction are never actually based on simple observations.
In his critique of causality, he notes that we never actually see cause and effect taking place; we just apprehend the sequence of one thing happening, and then another. What undergirds inductive logic is an assumption, one that can’t be proved inductively or deductively, that “instances of which we have had no experience, must resemble those of which we have had experience, and that the course of nature continues always uniformly the same.”
Right here; Lebowski; is where the cro-magnatron man was nearly hit by a radioactive meteor and the five Races of Man evolved.
You got the Number...
Satan [one of the apes], cupping his hand below Sniff’s chin to drink the blood that welled from a great wound on his face
Now you're just hiding behind a cloak of stupidity, FRiend.
There's nothing "practical" about this thread, since it's a theoretical discussion on "odds of evolution".
But you've made a number of ludicrous demands, including news on **artificial** production of RNA/DNA in labs, as if that had something to do with possible natural origins.
In response I posted two recent books on the general subject of abiogenisis.
You can make whatever practical or theoretical conclusions you wish from them.
I promise they will increase your understanding of today's ideas on this subject.
Yes, and Occam's razor is not even necessary here because there is no other natural explanation to consider.
Now like our FRiend HLPhat you also hide behind a cloak of stupidity?
You well know many books are readily available on such subjects, if you were truly interested in something other than sharpshooter arguments.
Such books explain in great detail both what we think we know, and what we don't.
Read some of them.
Once again you’ve vociferously demonstrated your ignorance.
Natural Selection is ALL about what renders practical results - and what doesn’t.
>>I posted two recent books on the general subject of abiogenisis.
Post the published papers that document the process for manufacturing functional RNA/DNA and associated mechanisms for self-replication or STFU.
prac·ti·cal
ˈpraktək(ə)l/
adjective
1.
of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas.
"there are two obvious practical applications of the research"
Warfare - the ultimate practical exercise in human evolution, is it?
You tell yourself you're not my kind...
But you don't even know your mind
And you could have a change of heart...Rikki don't lose that number
You don't want to call nobody else
Send it off in a letter to yourself
Rikki don't lose that number
It's the only one you own
You might use it if you feel better
When you get home
Got Pretzel Logic?
LOL.
BroJoKe, your pretentiously regurgitive "knowledge" reminds me of software “architects” I’ve cleaned up after when their fashionable buzzwords and bullshyte failed to materialize (or in some instances even compile) into something producing functional results.
Please tell the class, in your own words:
Why would a process culminating in abiogenesis not necessarily violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
We’ll wait.
Oh, come on, you know better than that.
Human nature is categorically different from what we mean by "the natural realm".
In Genesis God declares His natural realm "Good" seven times, and I see no reason to doubt His judgment on that.
Do you?
Agreed.
>>>>HLPhat: “So God made the abomination of Nature we see in Romans chapter 1, did He? “
>>BroJoeK: Oh, come on, you know better than that.
What’s the order of precedence articulated in Romans chapter 1.
“God gave them over”
What does this mean?
Now here, finally, is an appropriate place to ask HLPhat's question on practicality -- other than philosophical inquiry, what practical purpose is served by such observations?
>>what practical purpose is served by such observations?
You mean like being able to form a practical world-view, rooted in reality, where children are not amenable to being lured into the psychotic delusion that they can choose their gender.
Something practical like that?
XX + XX = FAIL
XY + XY = FAIL
XX + XY = Human
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.
