The Official Death of the Theory of Evolution – 2/25/2006

PowerBASIC Forums ^ | 2/25/2006 | SDurham

[ibme]

The Official Death of the Theory of Evolution – 2/25/2006

Theorem Name: The Illusion of Evolution DOA Theorem
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.

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)
AvRpdCyc - average reproductive life cycle generation (2)(3)
TotalRpdCyc – total reproductive cycles in the age of the Universe.

AoU = 10 billion = 10,000,000,000 years
AvRpdCyc = 100 per year (2)(3)
TotalRpdCyc = AoU * AvRpdCyc = 1,000,000,000,000 = 1 Trillion

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
MM = 175,711,536
TotalRpdCyc / MM = 1,000,000,000,000/175,711,536 = 5,691

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.

• This doesn’t take into consideration; no one has ever seen a rock do it.
• This doesn’t take into account; the Human Body consists of 10 Trillion individual cells.
• We haven’t considered the complexity of the Human Body.
• We haven’t considered the complexity of reproduction.
• We haven’t considered a distribution curve.
• We haven’t considered any deviation. (On odds of 1/Trillion there would have to be a massive deviation.) (4)
• We haven’t considered other forms of life.
• We haven’t taken into consideration that it’s a lot easier to pick lottery balls than produce a live entity able to reproduce itself.

1. Some say 20 billion years – based on scientific estimation.
2. I’m using 100 average reproductive cycles per year.
   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)
3. This is overly fair. Evolution has been intently studied for over 100 years and there is no evidence of anything evolving in the last 100 years.
4. Check the Mega Millions statistics for reference.

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.

[Coyoteman]

One can't pick and choose what to believe out of the Bible. It's either true or not.

Global flood?

[WildHorseCrash]

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...

[mountn man]

Prove every one of them conclusively. show me the exact moment each one of them came to this realization. I want all of their resumes, professors histories and credentials and a summary of all of their papers. 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.

Wow for someone who stands behind "scientific" claims, you sure have an unscientific way of proving things. You stated that basically all scientists worth their salt agree with evolution. I gave you a fairly long list of scientists who don't.

You disparage and denounce everyone of those, and yet you offer no proof to the contrary. You make broad generalizations about everyone of them. You expect me to prove things about them, and yet you yourself have given me baseless claims. I at least gave you some basis to my claim. And then you shoot down my side with generalizations that a democrat would use, without viable proof of your statement. (Are you a democrat?)

You don't agree with my view point and thats fine. But you made a pompous statement, and someone with an opposing view called you on it. I backed my view up with facts. And in your pompousness disregarded those facts because they didn't agree with your view, all the while never presenting any facts to discredit my facts, other than your bloviating imperious opinion.

[muir_redwoods]

You bore me with this nonsense

[VadeRetro]

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.

Excuse me, but, when "the lines broke" in the Battle of the Bulge, weren't the Germans headed for Antwerp?

[King Prout]

that post (ichneumon's) is of archival quality

[js1138]

I thought they were busy bombing Pearl Harbor.

[VadeRetro]

My preliminary check of your list shows not one "Steve," "Stephen," "Steven," "Stephanie," or "Stephan." Muir really does have 700 "Steves." Most of us know what he's talking about.

[VadeRetro]

Forget it, I'm on a roll.

[VadeRetro]

I see the problem. I left out the "d" in "Buldge."

[js1138]

...in actual fact the number of living things at any given time is not "one", as in this anti-evolutionist's drug-addled fantasy, the number of living things is on the order of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, which the last time I checked was a *lot* bigger than "one".

But not bigger than 1⁷⁰⁰

[mountn man]

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. Not only that, but mount man's list includes at least one dead guy...

And your accreditation is????? HMMMMMM?????? * * *

Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist

My list may be "short" compared to the millions of other scientists who don't believe in creationism. But its longer than what anybody else has offered.

Besides there are 6.5 billion (approx.) people on this earth to say that there are millions of scientists who oppose creationism might be just a weeeeeee bit of an over generalization.

Lastly, I'm assuming that you were asking what my accreditation is, for sarcasm purposes of course. Well I'm just an ordinary construction worker, with maybe a(and then again maybe not) slightly higher than average IQ. But I did sleep at a Holiday Inn once.

Besides, the point I was trying to make to someone else was that they made a very generalized statement with nothing at all to back it up. I was using a list of acredited individuals to back up mine. So my acredation doesn't matter.

As far as Dr. Morris, wow dead by 5 days. Like Maxwell Smart used to say "missed it by that much"

[King Prout]

as a side-note: in the course of researching for a project, I have acquired a handbook on forensic human osteology.
I am learing a fair amount of the basics of sexual dimorphisms *and* racially distinct morphologies.
I find it amusing that creationists believe that "the math proves" evolution cannot happen, while at the same time *insist* that the racially distinct morphologies arose from a single reproductive pair (not P generation, a PAIR) and three individual sons.
the genetic differences required to produce heritable traits such as prognathism and nasal guttering vs. orthagnathism and a nasal sill (for two minor morphological differences) could not *possibly* arise in a single generation.
That's just *one* set of differences, out of literally hundreds - don't get me started on the os innominata...

[mountn man]

You bore me with this nonsense

Wow good comeback on that. Did your mommy help you think that one up? Maybe Al Gore?

Your the one who chimed in on this. Next time you decide to be a little pompous, don't go running away, saying how bored you are, like this is all beneath you.

You really do remind me of Al Gore. And I don't think we've ever even met.

[hosepipe]

[ That's a strange thing to say, since I base my conclusions on an extensive examination of reality itself, whereas you get yours from a book. How does that make yours "1st reality" and mind "2nd reality"? Mine's a lot more first-hand with respect to reality than yours. ]

You just want to argue Ichy.. You know we live on different planets.. You could care less what I believe.. I know where you are coming from, more or less, you would have become "born again" to vaguely understand me.. I know that.. So I accept you on that level.. And you accept me as a Moonbat.. Thats the way its supposed to be.. Everything is just the way its supposed to be.. The Sheep MUST be separated from the goats.. and they ARE.. I'm O.K. wid dat..

Ugh OH!.. I feel a prayer rising up from within me.. I'm grabbing the arms of my chair.. HERE IT COMES>>>.

[Coyoteman]

Wait until you get into the teeth! Then you'll have some fun.

[PatrickHenry]

that post (ichneumon's) is of archival quality

It certainly is. But I can't neatly fit it into any category in The List-O-Links. We'll have to depend on Ichneumon to keep track of it so he can haul it out -- or link to it -- as needed.

[js1138]

Your post is a bit more detailed and sophisticated than my question about Noah's Y chromosome, but it's amounts to the same thing. How did all the variety arise so quickly from an incestuous tribe of eight people? It's even more puzzling when you consider that racial differences are fairly uniform in all historical depictions, regardless of their era.

[js1138]

One flew over the spell checker.

[PatrickHenry]

200