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.

[Mamzelle]

Thanks for posting this list. As reams of evo-spam clog up these threads, you shouldn't hesitate at all keeping an alternative POV on file for future posting in the inevitable next evo-thread. Because one evo is embarrassed by it is an encouragement, not a discouragement.

[VadeRetro]

Neither Remine nor anybody else is proposing such a thing.

You have rather badly mischaracterized him, then. Was your post 349 which said "... in every generation two people get the good mutation and the entire reaining 99,998 immediately die of jealousy and the two with the beneficial mutation have 100,000 kids to replace the entire herd" ignorant or dishonest?

Remine is simply stating that as the maximally evolution-friendly case there could possibly be even in some sort of a fairytale world.

Oh, that was Remine and not you? Whoever it was, forcing the mutations one-at-a-time with a die-off and reconstitution of the population after each one can hardly be described as the maximally evolution-friendly case. (And yet, you just did exactly that.) It is maximally strawman stupid, divorced from reality, and erects totally fanciful barriers to population drift via variation and natural selection.

The fact that people like yourself are capable of reading such a thing the way you did is part of the problem.

I am reading your words. You do not seem to have a story that is at once comprehensible and reality-friendly.

The impression I get is that all of you guys really are living in some sort of a fairytale world, in which the worst possible interpretation of the opposing case is always true, in which bribing or intimidating two or three idiot judges will always be a winning ticket for science controversies, in which everybody who disagrees is always a liar or an idiot...

Your dilemma does look something like that, but I had no power to put you there. You seem to have volunteered yourself for the position.

[whattajoke]

Thanks for posting this list.

Yes, I thanked him/her as well. However, I'm wondering if you were the least bit troubled by the claim that all 500 were PhD's? Does it trouble you in the least that the majority on that list are in such non-biological fields as meteorogly , electroengineering, and computer science? And what about the statement itself? Do you see that statement as a strong one against evolution? If so, please explain that to me, as I don't read it that way.

As reams of evo-spam clog up these threads

Do you consider this post "evo-spam?" If so, why?

[Mamzelle]

Evos go cut the same old boilerplate of the Grim Madame's web page, paste itas somehow rec'd revelation. As "science" (snicker) goes, that's kind of what one would call a closed system. Insular.

Inbred, that is.

If you're not embarrassed to post your same olds, from the same old source, I don't see why you should beel any embarrassment over the 500.

[Right Wing Professor]

Here's a list of 500 (at least) top scientists who refuse to buy into evolutionism. All are PHD level.

No, that's perhaps a half-dozen top scientists, and a lot of nonentities. Most of them are not even biologists or associated with the biological sciences.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

No, they're not, but thanks for childishly trying a pathetic slur when you are unable to deal with the material on its merits. Chalk up another excellent example of an anti-evolutionist engaging in cheap propaganda instead of honest discussion. Buh-bye.

Data dumps are not for forums. They are for dedicated web sites and books. If one wants to study in depth evolutionary theory he will buy a book or go to a dedicated site.

Forums are Socratic by nature. i.e. dialog not monologue. Get a clue.

..data dump

[kinsman redeemer]

Nailhead, meet hammer.

[Coyoteman]

Elsie--

I'm glad you are including the attribution to that article, as I posted on another thread.

But you left off: "It effectively demolishes the entire creationist argument. Excellent reading!"

[VadeRetro]

Penis-envy, meet data-envy.

[Mamzelle]

data dump--I like that. Evos taking a dump from their Master's web page.

That's how they "argue" and "debate" here. A unknowing freeper explores the evo hole, thinks he's engaging someone in a "discussion", and the gang of spiders hit's GM's page and starts posting (data dumping) the links found there. Frequently there are three or four goons ready and downloaded to go, which adds to the illusion of overwhelming "evidence." When it's really the same inbred junk.

That might go to explain, also, why these evos are rarely seen outside the evo holes. They can't go anywhere without a dump.

[whattajoke]

Evos go cut the same old boilerplate of the Grim Madame's web page, paste itas somehow rec'd revelation. As "science" (snicker) goes, that's kind of what one would call a closed system. Insular.

"Grim Madame?" I'm unfamiliar with such a person. "Evos," as you call them, are merely attempting to educate. I'll admit, it does become somewhat tedious posting the same informational research several times, so perhaps those who refuse to ever read it/educate themselves - at least to the point where they can present a rational refutation of anything contained within - will finally do so.

I also noticed you "snickered" after the word "science." I think that says a lot about you. But regardless, I also noticed you didn't really answer any of my rather simple, straighforward, and non "sciencey" questions.

[whattajoke]

I see you are online and posting. Good. Please now answer my questions from my last post to you.

[Mamzelle]

There're no questions in your last two posts to me.

[CourtneyLeigh]

The usual way, by believing in the divinity of Christ.

And here I thought you'd read all that Creationists believe

A true Christian has to accept Creationism.... why? That's where sin was first introduced, and the first sacrifice for sin!

Without sin, we don't need a Saviour...... Death before Life, which also goes against evolutionary theory... which shows life before death!

We are dead in our Sins until we accept the last final sacrifice of Christs blood to wash us clean and welcome us into the Family of God.

I don't practice churchdom, neither did Christ, He is the church "Clergy" and the only one, we are the Church family/bride/child of Christ! I don't need no stinking clergymen teaching me what I can read for myself!

Christians who believe in the Bible about Christ, but deny the Lords teachings on Creation and Time are calling God a liar, ignoring the truth, or are still innocently ignorant to what they don't know yet! Which we all go through in our own facets of life!

[Coyoteman]

The geological strata were created quickly by the deluge. ... There is strong evidence against an old earth.

You don't need to deal with fossils at all to show the global flood did not occur. Soils do nicely.

Soils can be dated in a variety of ways, and can be tied into various events (floods, ash falls from volcanic activity, local dessication, human occupation, etc.). It can also be determined if soils were deposited by wind or by water.

In my own research we deal with human habitation. There are continuous records of habitation in archaeological sites across the time period posited for the global flood. There are continuities of human occupation, radiocarbon dates, genetic markers, skeletal morphology, fauna and flora, artifact styles, etc.

To show a global flood you will need to examine the soil layers in the 4,000-5,000 year range and find at minimum:

• extensive sedimentation from a large flood (silts or clays) over a large area or worldwide

• a complete break in the faunal record, with replacement by different "kinds"

• a complete break in the genetic patterns and skeletal morphology of the local inhabitants, with replacement from Noah et al.

• a shift in settlement and subsistence strategies and artifact inventories after local groups are flooded out and an incoming group from the near east races hither and yon to spread worldwide

The soils carry a record of both human and natural activities. In the area I work (the western US), there is simply no evidence of a global flood in the 4,000-5,000 year range.

[And for Mamzelle, please note that none of this came from PatrickHenry's List-O-Links, as you imply in #371. This represents my own research. And I am neither a "goon" nor a "spider."]

[Right Wing Professor]

You a professional comedian or something?

No, I'm a professional scientist.

[VadeRetro]

Asimov's emotional basis for his atheism is unrelated to whether there's a non-emotional evidentiary basis for evolution. Are you really as confused about these matters as you pretend?

Consider, for a moment, that in 1750 practically everybody in science was a creationist. In geology, every effort was being made to interpret the geologic column exactly as modern YECs insist it be done now. Not much had been done in geology to that point, but everyone was entering into the endeavor with creationist assumptions in mind. In biology, the idea of evolution from common descent was around, but it was just a crackpot idea with sketchy evidence and no mechanism. At any rate, everyone was a creationist.

If the creation model had fit the evidence, there would have been no path from that point in history to this one. We got here because the evidence was not your friend and it wouldn't go away.

[kinsman redeemer]

shame

[VadeRetro]

sentences