The Odds of Evolution Are Zero

Townhall.com ^ | JUne 15. 2017 | Jerry Newcombe

[Mr.Unique]

What it TIME

The passing of now to then.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

I stand by everything I said — but, not necessarily things which you chose to read into what I said.

Abiogenesis is perfectly compatible with (part of, but not all of) creationism. Creationism covers both the creation of life; and the origin of species. Abiogenesis covers the creation of live itself — but, says nothing about the diversity of lifeforms. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution covers the diversification of lifeforms — but, says nothing about the origin of life itself. That was deliberate — partly because Darwin knew he had no ‘scientific’ explanation for the origin of life; and partly because Darwin was, himself, a religious man. I left all of that out before, in the interest of brevity. There’s ‘irony’ here — it’s just not where you think it is.

[AndyTheBear]

I agree the argument in the article was sloppy in many ways. Chiefly it ignores the odds beating tendency of generations in natural selection that gets us to the current complexity of life.

It also ignores the fact that when calculating the odds of having arrived at a conspicuous event was simply by chance, one must add in all the other results that one would find just as conspicuous or more so. For example, if the monkey had typed "Darwin was right" or "Darwin was wrong" or "Monkeys Rule!" or many other phrases we would find conspicuous.

But the basic charge of it not being feasible to get to the first life that could start taking advantage of generation is pretty valid. As biology advanced evolutionists had anticipated that they would be able to do it in the lab. Of course we find the opposite. We find it less and less feasible as our Empirical knowledge base grows. So much so, that Abiogenesis is ASSUMED rather than DEFENDED when an evolutionary naturalist like Dawkins is pushed on the subject.

Specifically, grand assertions of overwhelming certainty are claimed for "Evolution". And this certantity is used to support Naturalism. But when one presses to the lack of evidence for Abiogenesis to be even feasible (since it can't be done in a lab--and we have no idea how to do it in a lab on purpose, and yet its maintained it happened by accident)...and clearly its a complete mischaracterization to call the evidence for Abiogenesis strong or certain....then suddenly "Evolution" does not include Abiogenesis. So we have a fallacy of equivocation here.

[Agamemnon]

Just pointing out the logical fallacy.

The logical fallacy of the evolutionary premise is that the "geniuses" who adhere to that fallacy have locked themselves into this 13.8 billion years time box.

Face it, the observed bio-complexity of millions of life forms today is simply too great to continue to contend that 13.8 billion years contains enough time to have that level of observable, and quantifiable life form complexity arise by chance.

Evolutionary atheists are so smart they can't tell us how or why they supposedly evolved themselves as they did and they are so brilliant that they can't cause to happen by their own design in lab what they allege happened completely by chance.

FReegards!

[jonno]

“Apparently you don’t have a better description/understanding of Time than that.”

(Chuckles)

OK

[noiseman]

Your response is a dodge in the same vein as the "panspermia" nonsense. Just as the panspermia advocates try to solve the difficulty with abiogenesis by removing it one step to "aliens brought life here", you seem to be trying to use certain physical laws, like gravity, to support evolution. Yet, just as with panspermia, the clever avoidance doesn't answer the original question. If your assertion is true, and physical laws somehow are hard-wired (i.e. designed) to produce life and to push it upward toward greater and greater complexity, then doesn't that just again beg the question of the existence of a designer?

Of course, reality is quite the opposite of your gravity analogy. Everything we know about the physical universe is that it is running down, not upward, via entropy. Energy throughout the universe is approaching eventual equilibrium, and every biological system moves inexorably toward degradation and death. Everything we observe in nature and the cosmos aligns with the Biblical account of creation, followed by the fall.

And then there is the fact that evolution, far from being truly scientific, is merely rank speculation dressed up in scientific trappings. Just read or listen to evolutionists, and about every other phrase they utter is something along the lines of, "it must have happened this way", or "this probably happened." The language of evolution is nothing more than the language of wild guesses. For example, just look at how the late Stephen J. Gould suddenly just dreamed up a whole new theory ("punctuated equilibrium") out of whole cloth simply because he was tired of the facts not aligning with the previous theory. No fossil evidence of gradual change?...Presto change-o, and Poof!....a whole new theory in which he just speculates that evolution "must have" happened in spurts and so fast that it left few if any fossils. Not only was this nonsense based upon no evidence, it was actually the LACK OF EVIDENCE that he tried to use as the basis for it. That's not science....It's nothing more than materialistic dogma driven by an intense desire to explain everything that exists without a need for God.

And then we could go into the absolute impossibility of creating information from inanimate materials with no intelligent guidance. Putting aside the difficulty of explaining the origin of the biological substrate the information rides upon, just try to explain how an unimaginably complex genetic code (which involves FAR more than DNA, by the way) could just appear on its own, including the appearance contemporaneously of sophisticated biological machinery for encoding, decoding, and repairing this information. It is the very definition of impossibility to assert that a code, any code, could arise on its own. A code only conveys information because an intelligent being, human or divine, has assigned MEANING to what would otherwise be nothing more than arbitrary arrangements of acids, proteins, lipids, etc., in the biological case, or ink blots on paper in the case of the infinitely simpler English alphabet.

Every time this subject comes up I can't help but be reminded of the verse that states, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." The evidence for creation is all around us. This isn't really difficult. To believe that everything you observe just happened via natural processes takes a powerfully strong desire to avoid the truth.

[mad_as_he$$]

Mine is in English and I like it better!

BTW some relatively(like that!) new work in physics says that the “observed” part could be misunderstood. The local university Physics chair(an advisor to one of my offspring) tells me to watch for a paper this Summer with a new theory on time and observing it. Of course the writing of papers regarding time and quantum entanglements etc is one of the current rage(s) in Physics. I suspect driven by the CERN experiments with particles. Got to show all those billions were not wasted.

[HLPhat]

Per Special Relativity - What happens to the relative rate of state change as E approaches infinity?

[Sergio]

bkmk

[Hot Tabasco]

This universe just springing into being by chance is impossible.

While I won't disagree with that, I have a major problem with any explanation as to where God came from...........

Like they say, you can't create something from nothing and I hold the same belief when it comes to God............

[Chainmail]

It’s been my experience that the people who believe in the accidental creation of life are not mathematicians and certainly not Program Managers.

[HLPhat]

>>of course the writing of papers regarding time and quantum entanglements etc is one of the current rage(s) in Physics.

Of course.

Meanwhile, the rate of state change has been verified experimentally to progress relative to E.

What happens to the rate of state change as E approaches infinity?

[JimSEA]

“grand assertions of overwhelming certainty are claimed for “Evolution””

Actually the exclusion of abiogenesis from the theory of evolution is important. Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolution is supported by observations, an overwhelming number of observations in biology and paleontology.

[jonno]

I can tell you’re looking for something - and I wish I could help you, but sadly, all that comes to mind is: “sphincter says what?”

[ifinnegan]

“because Darwin knew he had no ‘scientific’ explanation for the origin of life”

Etc..

Yes. But what is referred to as abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolutionary theory, without the qualifying “Darwinian evolution”.

The irony is that modern proselytizers of evolution don’t understand or know that in citing a differentiation between evolution and abiogenesis, as they call it, is in itself a form creationism.

Either one believes there is some sort of magical or supernatural start where life exists and then Natural selection follows to create the “diversity of life forms”, as you put it, or one believes the same forces and processes did it all.

[dhs12345]

Interesting... ‘There is no “before”’

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was >formless and empty<, darkness was over the surface of the deep....”

Anyway...

Weird to think that space-time is actually moving... so as not to violate the Theory of Special Relativity. If it applies to the early universe — the physical laws may not work or apply??

Also, what is happening at the boundary where space-time doesn't exist yet as the universe expands — just outside the surface of the balloon?

Thinking classically and using your balloon example, as space-time is expanding it is filling the nothingness — the nothingness that existed before the big bang?

[jonno]

“Actually the exclusion of abiogenesis from the theory of evolution is important.”

But not necessarily possible - some see it as a problem:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3561255/posts?page=40#40

[HLPhat]

>>I can tell you’re looking for something

Nope, just observing your relatively special inability to articulate a fundamental understanding of "TIME".

[jonno]

Thanks for noticing; my mother always told me I was special.

[HLPhat]

Given...

https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3561255/posts?page=75#75

What happens to T as E approaches infinity?