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 doesnt 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 arent 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
Im 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)
If this means what I think it means, you have just bolstered my main point in 220: you don't want ultimate accountability, therefore you believe evolution because it's the most credible alternative to the obvious default (that we were made, there there is meaning and purpose, that man is special, etc.)
Creationism is practiced by coming back dumb as a stump with arguments refuted 1000 times before, willful misinterpretation of data, fanciful remembering, word-twist games, and other delights of Satan. But do carry on.
.data dump...facts..evidence...it's all there
Wrong. Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about God.
"Contemplate this on the Tree of Woe"
But really, why don't you take a look at some of the data that was posted, rather than ridiculing it sight-unseen?
I maintain that evolution is primarly an emotion-driven movement per the point in 220. Asimov himself admitted as much with regard to his atheism (see his quote on my profile page, in red.)
Consider the implications. You're intelligent. Unpack it.
Out for the night.
Because the arguments are based on faith. Not logic.
Because the arguments are based on faith. Not logic.
Let me get this straight. Is it your claim that all of the facts and theory supporting evolution are a matter of faith?
What about the scientific method, which is shared by all sciences? Are all sciences equally based on "faith?"
Are you really saying that all of science is trash and that we should be getting all of our learning from some other source? Tarot cards? Enrails? (Yech!)
I can't believe that this is what you are saying.
I prefer Heinlein's words myself:
What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' - what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts!Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
Do any apes have tails?
Are you really saying that all of science is trash and that we should be getting all of our learning from some other source? Tarot cards? Enrails? (Yech!)
I strongly believe in science. But the "Darwinists" are not engaged in science. They are engaged in speculation based on faith.
I think you're making a common anti-evo mistake: forgetting that other people are part of the environment we're adapted to.
Think of two tribes of cavemen (or earlier hominids). One of them has an ethos of cooperation and mutual respect. The other's is totally self-centered.
Now tell me, which one is more likely to gang up on and eat a mammoth? IE, which one has the selective advantage here? IE whose genes survive?
Darwinists? The only folks who use that term are coming from a particular religious belief, and use it as a term of derision. You know, demonize your enemy... (This casts doubt on your claim of belief in science, as evolution follows the scientific method.)
I studied evolution and closely related fields for half of my time in grad school, all of the way through to the Ph.D. exams.
Are you saying that I am "engaged in speculation based on faith" rather than doing science based on fact and theory?
What is your basis for this statement?
1. Would you state what the new theory is?
2. Are you using the term theory with the following meaning:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.)
If not, what definition of theory are you using?
3. What time frame do you see before evolution is removed from the system?
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.