Posted on 02/26/2006 9:12:24 PM PST by ibme
The Official Death of the Theory of Evolution – 2/25/2006
Theorem Name: The Illusion of Evolution DOA Theorem Note: This Theorem looks at the Theory of Evolution from a completely abstract point of view. The formulas and discussion are presented from an Evolutionist point of view. This doesn’t necessarily represent the view of the author. AoU – age of the Universe. (1) AoU = 10 billion = 10,000,000,000 years In the whole age of the Universe, there are only about 1 Trillion opportunities for something to evolve to a different state – eventually Man. (this is very generous)(3) MM - Mega Millions Jackpot Odds In order to believe the Theory of Evolution, you have to believe the odds of going from Rock to Man are only 5,691 times greater than winning the Mega Millions Jackpot.
Note: If something is wrong with the math, please show me. The numbers are not presumed to be absolutely correct. You can play with the numbers. Throw in a few million here and there. No matter what numbers you consider, there aren’t enough reproductive life cycles in the projected age of the Universe to produce the simplest form of life.
Theorem: There are not enough reproductive life cycle generations available in the projected age of the Universe to allow even the most basic form of evolution.
AvRpdCyc - average reproductive life cycle generation (2)(3)
TotalRpdCyc – total reproductive cycles in the age of the Universe.
AvRpdCyc = 100 per year (2)(3)
TotalRpdCyc = AoU * AvRpdCyc = 1,000,000,000,000 = 1 Trillion
MM = 175,711,536
TotalRpdCyc / MM = 1,000,000,000,000/175,711,536 = 5,691
I’m taking into consideration that the Theory of Evolution is based on things moving from simple states to more complex. Some cells reproduce quickly. Mankind would be around 12 years at the best. (3)
No. It's just a commonly held opinion.
How very gnostic of you.
I don't think you know what gnosticism is.
Then what is all this "dust of the ground and rib nonsense? nonsense?
No, just allegorical detail.
If that is nonsense, then why do you believe the rest of the story?
None if it is nonsense. It is a story designed to convey historical and spiritual truths important for salvation. The details aren't important, and shouldn't be treated as important. You just can't read a ancient text as if it were a work of post-enlightenment history. Ancient peoples simply didn't write like that.
If you believe that is a fairy tale then why would you believe the rest?
It's not a fary tale.
What was Jesus' Body made of?
Same thing as yours.
Was Jesus descended from an Ape?
Yes.
When you take communion are you eating the flesh of an evolved being?
That, as well as his soul and divinity.
A sign of what? I mean if there is no global flood, the ark doesn't save anyone, they could have just moved and been done with it. At that point, the matter of import is that God saved them by letting them know to move. Doesn't appear that you've thought this through.
Pretty simple. Go back and read - how long did Noah slave away at making this Ark in the understanding that a global flood was coming (a lie from your standpoint). Now, if God could have just told Noah to move, this is all wasted effort. The whole point was that the boat should save them from a global flood. If no flood, God becomes a liar and a slave driver to no purpose other than wasting Noah's time.
God's salvific power, Noah's faith in it, and a warning to his neighbors.
I mean if there is no global flood, the ark doesn't save anyone, they could have just moved and been done with it.
Yes, but God's salvific power would not have been made manifest in the same powerful manner.
Think about it this way.
Some guy Noah happens to move away just before a flood comes. Very easy to write off as a coincidence.
Now consider the same guy, but instead of moving away, he spends years building an ark anticipating a flood. Everyone sees it. The flood comes and his family is saved because they were in the ark. That's a lot harder to write off now, isn't it?
Nowhere does the text say it was global.
Now, if God could have just told Noah to move, this is all wasted effort.
Not wasted, because the ark makes a powerful point that merely moving away does not.
The Dover ID vote was a chance to take a potshot at Darwinism. Where were all the anti-Darwin voters?
It is not a testament to anti-evolution strength that a State like Utah couldn't manage to pass a milktoast measure such as this:
"The bill would have required teachers to tell students that evolution is not a fact and the state doesn't endorse the theory."
It is the battle of the buldge for us and we've broken through the lines and driven onward with no real resistance for miles. We're headed for Berlin full steam ahead and taking no prisoners. That's why the numbers look as they do and it's why the evos are in such an uproar. V-day is coming for us.
When?
Apparently it's how many reproductive events happen in a year. Anyway, who cares? The whole thing is terminally confused, insofar as his "model" - if we want to be generous and even extend it the courtesy of calling it that - is based on a universe with a population of one organism. Then he calculates how many speciation opportunities there have been, assuming that there's one every time the thing reproduces, based on how many possible reproductions there have been since the dawn of time. Of course, he doesn't bother to explain why a trillion steps is insufficient. Nor does he realize that evolution is not teleological - humans are not a necessary consequence of evolution, nor is any particular organism for that matter. Nor does the universe consist of one single organism. And so forth and so on. The only thing that's moderately interesting about this pile is that someone other than the author is apparently taking it seriously.
Ain't that the truth!
"Something I thought you might find useful."
Nice website. Glad to see they have John MacArthur on there. I've supported his ministry for many years.
You might want to do a google search under "Phil Johnson". He is an editor for John MacArthur and maintains and outstanding website. A great resource for conservative evangelical Christians.
God's salvific power? Salvation from what? A local flood.. sorry. New Orleans must have meant nothing to you. God saved Noah from New Orleans because he had the man slave away for a modern lifetime plus building a wooden aircraft carrier.. And saved all the mammals in the world from New Orleans.. Does any of this ever sink in or do you just say it hoping it will sound less absurd if nobody thinks about it? Perhaps He'd have been better off telling Noah to wait and use a bunch of school busses?
No. The story isn't of a local flood. The impact doesn't fit a local flood. And the Ark saved no one if they could have merely moved. You don't spend 100 years building a boat when you could spend less time walking and get someplace safe. Perhaps you should examine your sense.
The text states if flatly. You can't cover the highest hills and mountains on earth without covering the rest of the planet unless you've found something that modern Physics has heretofor been unaware of. Again, read. That's half the problem with these ill-informed pronouncements is that the people making them haven't bothered to read the texts much less think about them.
Not wasted, because the ark makes a powerful point that merely moving away does not.
I'm afraid it does not. If they could have moved away, they didn't need saving. That's kindof a bottom line point. If they could do it themselves, they didn't need saving. If they could merely walk, they didn't need an instrument of salvation - their feet were already that instrument. Why don't you go plop a speedboat into someone's swimming pool and see how greatful they are that you provided a means of escaping the water. Better, tell them they need to build a speedboat so that they can escape the pool. If they are in no real danger, the word "rescue" doesn't apply.
The Dover ID vote isn't needed to take a potshot at Darwinism, that has been going on for some time. And Darwinism as a result has been on the decline. Dover is nothing. You would like it to be something so you can say you gained ground where you did not. Dover shows the entrenchment of Darwin within the system - not within the public. And as much as it does not wish to come out of the system, it is going to. Your hope is to make dover look like a loss for Creationists. No, it's a bump on the road for a new theory. It is nothing to creationists. Sober up.
It's a great site indeed. Bennett has a heart as big as Texas and you can hear the hurt of betrayal in his voice when he discusses where he came from. It's painful to listen to it on the one hand; but, it's good to know the guy has it right at this point. Just makes you want to jump up and down cheering that even the most blinded can find the light.
That is the standard you want for Evolution supporters isn't it? HMMMMMMMM?
This is a bunch of BS and you know it. The list of match-book masters degrees and dime-store doctorates means nothing. I can get you a list of 700 scientist named Steve who support evolution. No serious scientist with real credentials in the life sciences doubts the general truth of evolution. If one of them argues with another about the mechanism, you put them both on your list.
AvRpdCyc = 100 per year (2)(3)
TotalRpdCyc = AoU * AvRpdCyc = 1,000,000,000,000 = 1 Trillion
Hey genius, you forgot to consider the number of life forms in the game. Assuming asexual reproduction for the first life form (about which evolution doesn't speak and doesn't concern itself)and a few million individuals involved, your numbers are way off. Multiply the odds by a few million or 10's of millions and get back to me.
I'm sorry, byt you claimed that there was "a huge group" of anti-evolution scientists, and you have failed to support this false claim you have made. The list you have just provided is only an extremely tiny number of scientists compared to the millions of scientists who accept the validity of evolutionary biology. If that's the thin reed you wish to cling to, so be it, but don't expect anyone else to be impressed that you can find a tiny fringe group which disagree with the considered conclusions of the vast majority.
The Hebrew word used for "earth" used in the passage can also mean "large geographic region." Large, regional catastrophic floods have been known to cover local mountains and hills.
If they could have moved away, they didn't need saving.
By your logic, the people of New Orleans didn't need saving. They could have just moved away.
I can assure you, however, that those who had boats were pretty darn grateful they had them after the flood hit.
which speaks NOTHING of the actual shape of the object, this is could be very precise if the container had a slightly flaired edge,(they too the measurements as a diameter was given from the "Brim") more beaker shaped than uniform cup.
they measured an object, they didn't say how to build the object,
one of the best rhetoric questions in the bible ..
John 3:11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
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.