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.”
Surely you already know, those "doodads" are found in every generation's DNA, right?
They're called mutations and every generation inherits both the accumulated stock from the past and a small number of new ones.
The vast majority of mutations to non-coding DNA are harmless, nearly all to coding DNA harmful in natural selection, but a small number helpful.
Those are the beginnings of adaption & evolution.
All of which I'd guess you already know, but chose to mock it, for what reason?
I note from your other posts (ie #377) that you are here as an insult artist.
So your function is not to review or debate ideas, but to pretend that your own overwhelming godlike knowledge makes any disagreement with you a matter of simple rebellious ignorance.
So we don't expect rational discourse from Agamemnon, fine.
Agamemnon: "Real science did away with the concept of abiogenesis with Redi in the 1600's, Pasteur in the 1800s, and with the failures of the Miller-Urey experiments in the 1950's."
What real science learned is that abiogenisis does not jump instantly from nothing to some complex life form.
But Miller-Uray was very successful in demonstrating that organic chemicals form naturally, inevitably, under certain conditions.
Whether those or different conditions existed somewhere on early Earth is debatable, but what's not debatable is the natural occurrence of organic compounds not only on Earth but in outer space.
That brings us up to the 1950's.
Since the 1950s much additional work has been done to identify what natural conditions will force simple organic compounds to "complexify".
And at this point I have to refer you to experts, which I again promise I will, soon as I'm home again.
Agamemnon: "Your challenge is to show how you create life from that which is non-life.
I'll be particularly interested to see how you over come inherently self-destructive 'primordial' environments, or if you even had the sparingly possible success of creating the simplest amino acids, how you would favor selection in all the randomness of biologically active levo- forms from competitively present non-biologically active dextro- forms."
If you imagine a process of natural "complexification" requiring, let's say, a million baby-steps, and that at some range within those steps complex organic chemistry might be said to have become "lifelike", then I would suppose, as of today, a hand-full of those natural steps are identified & even duplicated in labs.
Again, I'll refer you to experts, of whom there are many.
Agamemnon: "Complexify" that!
It's OK, we'll just sit back and wait.
I'll get the popcorn."
Thanks for your patience.
If you are by some chance more interested in the subject matter than in insults, you won't be disappointed.
You jump ahead way too fast.
You cannot start off talking about DNA.
You must begin with organic chemistry and what natural conditions cause it to "complexify".
Those do exist and some have been identified.
Again, let's suppose that the entire process from simple Miller-Urey organic compounds to complex life forms required a million baby-steps.
As of today, a few have been identified and even duplicated, but the vast majority are still just hypothesized.
As I understand it, that is the state of the art.
Heartlander: "It's at this point many will state that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
But here's the rub - if initial life had purpose and reason - why would all further iterations of life just be genetic mistakes that lived without reason leading to our human consciousness? "
In any chemistry lab or industrial process, when you create the conditions **necessary** for the desired reactions & compounds, if you then claim the results are "by accident" or "random chance", a normal person might find reasons to question your veracity.
Why would you claim "random chance" when the results (if successful) are just what you intended?
Likewise with evolution.
Nothing is random, all was intended by our Creator.
That should not be a matter requiring great debate.
You disagree?
You tell me.
If you construct a chemical reaction chamber intended to convert certain simple organic compounds to something more complex, and your process is successful, does that meet your criteria?
Now imagine what natural conditions might also complexify organic compounds.
That's what various abiogenetic hypotheses propose.
But there's no "religion" in evolution, just the opposite.
Like all of natural-science, evolution requires no truth, no belief, no faith and certainly nothing supernatural.
What we can observe science calls facts, explanations for facts are hypotheses which if strongly confirmed become theories, and that's all there is.
So, if you make evolution into some sort of religion, the it is by all definitions a false one.
Right, just as sametheman posted.
In fact, Darwinian basic evolution theory refers just to speciation through descent with modifications and natural selection, not to various origin of life hypotheses.
Naturally, those who reject evolution generally will wish to conflate all unconfirmed hypotheses together with both observed facts and confirmed theories, and claim they're ALL just speculation.
But they're not.
Evolution requires no truth? I don't get that statement.
Evolution requires Space, Time and Matter which have no reason for existing. You've heard that "nature abhors a vacuum"? Nature really abhors existing. So you have to start out with a huge leap I faith to believe ANY explanation for the universe being here.
A mind that refuses to believe in God will cling to any hint of pseudo scientific babble that supports evolution but a mind that believes in God sees pseudo science as pure mumbo jumbo trying to defend an impossible theory.
No, what's odd is how you fantasize about research that's far beyond what has yet been discussed publicly.
So far as we laymen know, state of the art today is well beyond simple 1950s Miller-Urey, but still far from recreating basic tools of cellular reproduction.
Take a look at those books, what have you got to lose?
I’m an engineer myself, agnostic and formerly a believer in evolution (though always had some lingering doubts) , and quite skeptical. It changed my mind.
Myers has a PhD in philosophy of science as well as a strong background in biology. His rigorous arguments are strictly based on evidence and sound logic not religious arguments.
Both books are true tours de force. Your local library probably has them.
I would start with “Signature in the Cell” which is more about the origin of life and the machinery of the cell. “Darwin’s Doubt” is more about Darwinian evolution. Both are rather substantial volumes.
Let's note first there are many books on these subjects readily available and I don't necessarily know even the best of them, but do know some I can recommend.
And before any others, we need a good explanation of both the arguments and language employed in these discussions.
For that I know of no better presentation than alleged "atheist" Eugenie Scott's "Evolution vs. Creationism"
Now for the more technical stuff, again there are many recent books on origin of life ideas, but two I know are, Addy Pross, 'What is Life, How Chemistry becomes Biology'
And Nick Lane, 'The Vital Question'
Both of these books are a little beyond my understanding, but still readable enough to grasp their basic ideas.
Nick Land's book is especially enjoyable.
No truth, belief, or faith? Hmmm… Human consciousness and conscience cannot ultimately come from mindlessness. Mindlessness can only bestow the illusion of consciousness and conscience – the illusion beauty and love – the illusion of any design we believe to see in nature. If our exsistance were to ultimately come from mindlessness, then everything we believe about ourselves and what we see around us is false.
Moreover, to know these falsehoods about oneself, one must be a sort of diviner or prophet. So what do these prophets of falsehoods say about our exsistance? To paraphrase:
- Dawkins - we are merely lumbering robots doing the bidding of selfish genes created by a blind watchmaker in a universe of blind pitiless indifference without good or evil.
- Rosenberg – we have an illusion that thoughts really are about stuff in the world - we live with the myths that we have purposes that give our actions and lives meaning - and that there is a person “in there” steering our body.
- Provine - no ultimate foundation for ethics exists - no ultimate meaning in life exists – and human free will is nonexistent.
- Pinker - brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth
- Dennett - Darwinism is like “a universal acid; it eats through just about every traditional concept and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view.
- Ruse - ethics is an illusion created by our genes to decive us – morality is an adaptation – and evolution is a religion.
So, if you make evolution into some sort of religion, the it is by all definitions a false one.
Darwinism (unlike ID) doesn’t even exclude anything. It allows for convergent evolution (statistically impossible), stagnant evolution (you mean to tell me that for 500 million years there could be no improvement to the horseshoe crab?), punctuated evolution (everything stays the same for a real long time and then evolution kicks into high gear and it all happens so fast there’s no record of it having happened at all), neutral evolution (the blueprints for marvelously useful structures get created in unexpressed DNA by random shuffling, until one day voila, the gene is turned on and the structure appears fully formed). In evolution anything goes and contradictions live in happy harmony with one another. This is science? It’s not even a sound religion.
- Laszlo Bencze
>>You tell me.
That’s probably impossible since it seems you’re mostly interested in an echo chamber reflecting the sound of your own vociferitude.
The simple answer “Yes” would’ve been adequate.
Yeah, and androids dream of electric sheeple, so far as we laymen know.
Meanwhile - in grant-funded reality land:
https://www.google.com/#tbm=nws&q=Artificial+Living+RNA+Synthesized
{ crickets crickets crickets }
>>Right, just as sametheman posted.
Except that wasn’t what he posted.
But thanks for echoing your thoughts.
"So far as we laymen know, state of the art today is well beyond simple 1950s Miller-Urey, but still far from recreating basic tools of cellular reproduction."
388 posted on 6/21/2017, 9:35:57 AM by BroJoeK
"evolution requires no truth, no belief, no faith and certainly nothing supernatural."
Quack waddle...
"far as we laymen know, state of the art today is well beyond"
...that's a pretty faith-filled DUCK!
Seems to me Transhumanist/Postgenderist/Techocrat kids these days are gonna be in for a bumpy ride once the natural punitive/corrective fail-safe against STEM-worship, described in Romans chapter 1, kicks in... again.
The captain has illuminated the seat-belt sign. Please extinguish all smoking materials!
It's no big mystery because "truth" is a philosophical, theological or legal term, not used in natural-science.
I'm merely saying, if you're looking for truth, don't look to science for it because that's not what science does.
What science does, and only does, is natural explanations for natural processes, period.
Science deals in observations (facts) and hypotheses some of them confirmed as theories.
But none are "truth" because all are subject to falsification by new data or better ideas.
That's one reason natural-science is the opposite of any religion.
DungeonMaster: "A mind that refuses to believe in God will cling to any hint of pseudo scientific babble that supports evolution but a mind that believes in God sees pseudo science as pure mumbo jumbo trying to defend an impossible theory."
But science is far from "mumbo jumbo" or an "impossible theory", indeed evolution makes perfect sence if you accept its basic assumptions, among which are 1) only natural explanations for natural processes and 2) processes we see today worked the same in the Deep Past.
But more important, there's no need to reject God to accept scientific findings and visa versa -- it's not either or.
It is certainly a matter of understanding where the natural realm ends and the supernatural begins.
But none of that has anything to do with science generally or evolution theory specifically.
If you are hereby suggesting that God is essential to creation, I don't for a minute disagree.
But the theory of evolution, so far as it goes, remains both observed and/or confirmed.
Remember, it's the theory of evolution, not theory of everything.
Heartlander: "...to know these falsehoods about oneself, one must be a sort of diviner or prophet.
So what do these prophets of falsehoods say about our exsistance?
To paraphrase:"
Sure, many if not most scientists are atheists and atheism is their religion, I don't dispute that.
But not all scientists, many very famous scientists are/were very devout.
More important, science strictly defined does not require atheism or any other religion.
And by strictly defined I mean methodological naturalism.
Methodological naturalism simply assumes that whatever supernatural actions God takes cannot by definition be studied scientifically.
Such work is left to theologians & philosophers.
Heartlander: "In evolution anything goes and contradictions live in happy harmony with one another.
This is science?
It’s not even a sound religion."
I disagree, but readily accept that basic Darwinian evolution theory does not answer every conceivable question somebody might throw at it.
Nevertheless, basic theory of speciation through descent with modifications and natural selection remains both observed and/or confirmed.
Sorry, but it appears I understand neither your question nor your proposed answer.
Have a great day, sir.
So, you will address me with riddles and you expect, what, in response?
So, like Agamemnon, you are here as an insult artist, practicing your trade, uninterested in reasoned conversation.
Have a great day, sir.
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.