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.”
Once again you vociferously demonstrate your own ignorance, by changing the subject to avoid the truth.
HLPhat:" Post the published papers that document the process for manufacturing functional RNA/DNA and associated mechanisms for self-replication or STFU. "
Your ludicrous demands are of no interest to me, FRiend.
So do your own research, or STFU.
>>>>>Your ludicrous demands are of no interest to me, FRiend.
>>So do your own research, or STFU.
I’ve done enough research to know why a pretentious goon like you can’t produce a published paper documenting the process for manufacturing RNA/DNA and the associated self-replicating mechanisms.
Your buzzwords and bullshyte don’t compile in the real world Joek boy.
Liar.
The SUBJECT - is Evolution through the process of Natural Selection.
"there's nothing "practical" about this thread"
Natural Selection is ALL about producing PRACTICAL results.
OK then...
I'm sorry Saul; but your armor doesn't fit me well.
Ya wantin’ to monkey around??
>>Ya wantin’ to monkey around??
Tempting, but dead husbands leave no tails.
HLPhat: “ Warfare - the ultimate practical exercise in human evolution, is it? “
Sure, but you keep changing the subject.
This thread’s question is: what are the odds of evolution, and it proposes zero, but you have weaponized every subject but that in order to make yourself seem superior and belittle yours truly.
And for what purpose?
To say something important about the odds of evolution?
What is it?
>>Sure, but you keep changing the subject.
Liar. The subject is the odds of practical results being rendered by the process of Evolution through Natural Selection.
If that fact is belittling to you then BOOHOO for you.
Maybe you’ll feel better if you join the herd of like-minded poodlectuals in their “safe” environment at Evergreen College this fall.
[Evergreen's Collapse of Civil Discourse]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr8MCxW_PLw
Seems you're already quite comfortable with their style of manipulating conversation and vocabulary as required to support your narative. You should fit right in.
Today's Biologists: The cheetah is endangered because of lack of diversity.
Today's Evolutionist: A positive evolutionary change in an animal is limited to a VERY small number of them (like ONE!)
I think if viruses were involved in the process of disseminating beneficial RNA/DNA it would more likely affect a significant portion of a local population.
For the same reasons as many other chemical processes, a fact you well know, but you wish to weaponize this question, for what reason?
Why do you hide behind a cloak of stupidity while assuming an air of infinite superiority?
Why not just make your point, pencil, and let it go with that?
I'll ask again: why do you hide behind a cloak of stupidity, while assuming an attitude of infinite superiority?
Why not just make your point?
HLPhat: "“God gave them over” What does this mean?"
Seems obvious to me, but maybe you tell us something new?
As always, you misunderstand.
Sorry, but all the "pretentious goonisms" here are yours, pal.
You've taken on an attitude of insulting god-like superiority that is simply inexcusable.
And you've used this matter strictly as a weapon to bludgeon with, rather than as data to support some point you wished to make.
Why is that?
As for me, I have no interest in such a paper, none, except as its results might find their way into other books similar to those I recommended above.
Sure, but this thread is on the "odds" of evolution, a question which is strictly theoretical, not "practical" and which, strangely, you seem to avoid like the plague.
Why is that?
Faith is based on nothing........ zero
No facts can "belittle", but your attitude of insulting superiority is not only inexplicable, its inexcusable.
You may know that a few genetic mutations appear in every individual, most harmless or harmful, occasionally helpful.
Whether the same mutation can appear in more than one individual in a generation is speculation, but if it's helpful that would increase the chances of survival.
As for your cheetah's, wasn't it claimed some years ago that Tiger (Woods) is a cheetah, but that's a category of species transformation I'm not familiar with.
Are you?
;-)
I disagree.
>>As always, you misunderstand.
I understand, per the pretentiously vapid act you’ve put on display, that you probably wouldn’t be able to read and understand such a paper... if one did exist.
How’s that application to Evergreen College coming along Mr. Poodlectual?
The odds are you’re practically a shoe-in for selection there.
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.