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)
Man oh man! You just crack me up. I read your post and LMAO! Thanks for the pick-me-up and I'll see you around the forum. (No sarcasm. I'm really freaking dyin' over here!)
driveserve
I am curious. Do you have an argument to present that actually addresses scientific evidence?
yes. it is a science-wing joke of long standing.
"penis envy, meet data envy"--same page, but I'm not positive that it's the same marionette. I'm not positive that it's not. They do sound alike.
"Invinvible"?
Am I to take it from your response that you have no actual comments that address the subject of evolution? Thus far I have observed that you have made allegations -- often unsubstantiated -- regarding those who accept the theory of evolution, but I have not observed a posting from you wherein you address the theory itself.
This is not in evidence in the geologic column. In many places the strata have been upended and exist now at a slant. This has happened because the ground beneath 'bulged' up and the top of the bulge eroded away. On top of this slanted strata sits another group of strata.
Within the original group of strata is evidence of erosion between some of the layers.
For layers to show signs of erosion they must be deposited, consolidate, then suffer wind or water erosion. We observe today that erosion is ubiquitous and affects all exposed surfaces, in fact the only way a layer will stop eroding is if it is covered by another layer.
This means that in this group of strata, layers have been deposited, then given time to consolidate, then given even more time to erode and lastly covered by at least one other layer.
We now have a group of strata, with eroded layers sandwiched between other layers. As in evidence today - we can actually measure the speed, direction and extent - the ground beneath us is not perfectly stable, it moves - sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly, sometime it mounds, sometimes it depresses. In the case I'm talking about, the ground mounds relatively quickly (too slowly and the tilt will be difficult to see in our sample), it creates a hill where the strata is tilted from the horizontal. Deposition of material happens in most cases willy nilly, sometimes it happens quickly, sometimes it happens slowly. In our example, the deposition occurs at a rate slower than erosion so the top of the hill is gradually scoured flat, exposing the 'ends' of the tilted strata. Those ends now show signs of erosion just like some of the layers contained in the group.
We now have a segment of rock that shows signs of erosion between the layers and on the ends of the layers.
During the shifting of the ground beneath us, sometimes layers fracture and shift. The shift is evidenced quite visibly by the layers contained in the strata not lining up correctly along a line within the column. The visual aspect of this is similar to making a thin cut dividing a highly grained wood such as oak into two pieces, realigning the two pieces together then 'slipping' one piece against the other for a short distance. It is quite obvious that the two pieces of Oak were at one time a single piece but it is equally obvious that the piece was cut and reassembled slightly askew. This same obvious marker of a fracture (cut) and shift is found frequently in the geologic record (including in our example). For the fracture to occur the sediment must be 'rock', its structure must be interlocked. It has to have 'hardened'.
Our example now shows the development of a group of layers, some of which were exposed to erosion, that was tilted and then again eroded. This structure was then cracked and shifted.
Now for the kicker. This tilted, eroded, cracked and shifted rock has more layers deposited on top of it. Indeed some of the layers on top of our group of layers show their own evidence of erosion and fracture.
Some of the layers contain fossils. Some do not.
Now remember, for the layers to be fractured they need to form, for practical purposes, a single hardened rock.
My question to you - how does a year long, initially and finally incredibly turbulent flood produce the above example structure?
This is why we have jumbles of fossils in places like Montana,
Montana is in the middle of an area that shows signs of multiple connections with the ocean. In the Canadian provinces just above Montana are the remnants of numerous reefs built upon one another. This is why Saskatchewan produces more potash than any where else in the world.
Note: Reefs are living organisms that take very long times to build up.
The evidence is there that the area flooded with sea water where reefs built up, then later portions dried out. This cycle happened, not once, but many times. The entire area that includes much of Montana has been under water and been dry dozens of times. In which of these cycles did the 'Flood' occur?
Note: Dating of varves in southern Sask shows no flooding in the glacial built plains for roughly 9000 years.
The jumbles of fossils occur during major material slumps. Both underwater and above water slumps happen all the time but are localized.
"fish on mountaintops.
Most mountains are the result of tectonic plate collisions where during orogeny what was once a continental shelf has be uplifted to become a mountain.
If the fish were deposited on those mountain tops by the flood, the water must have at least covered that mountain. If this is the case you have the problem of the origin of that huge amount of water and the removal of that same amount of water. Don't forget to consider friction and gravity when you explain where the water came from and went to.
"This is why the salt concentration in the dead sea is what it is - not what we would expect after hundreds of thousands of years of salt added (rivers) and only water evaporating, to say nothing of millions of years.
You are assuming that the rate of saltification of the Dead Sea is constant and that it has always been open to salt water. Why? If the Dead Sea is a result of a global flood then should there not be many more like it?
"There is strong evidence against an old earth. Trouble is, it doesn't fit with the evolutionary model and is therefore ignored - just like your tagline says.
The only evidence against an old earth is that contrived by those with a vested interest in proving a young earth. My tagline was decided upon after investigating the methods and results of creation 'scientists'.
"You are not able to demonstrate that those stratum you mention represent millions of years. That is an assumption - an assumption of ToE that has metastasized into geology, astronomy, etc., an unprovable assumption that nevertheless must be embraced lock-step by all.
This is an unfounded assertion based on your desire to see an old earth abolished. The age of the earth was suspected to be of great age long before Darwin and the ToE, indeed many based their concept of earthly old age on the geologic column. You can't blame the results of literally dozens of methods of age determination on a single synthesis such as the ToE. Biological evolution, which is what the ToE is restricted to, has no impact on the determination of age in most fields of science that routinely determine the age of earth or the cosmos. Why should an astronomer or a cosmologist care about the fit of current evolutionary ages to fossil finds. By the way, fossils are not the only way great age and common descent are determined in biological organisms, DNA has been a big help.
"Regarding your ambivalence about the link between ToE and atheism: I maintain that the ToE lies as the foundation for respectability for atheism.
Why should atheists need the ToE to believe themselves respectable? I became an atheist long before I paid any attention to the ToE and I suspect this is true of a great many atheists, past and present.
" I am a little disappointed that more people are not seeing the relationship between a belief A) we are just animals and accidents, therefore B) there's no basis for morality, cf. sexual revolution, drug culture, etc. Not saying ToE is sole cause, but it creates an environment that justifies "if it feels good, do it," and just abort the "consequences" (they're just animals anyways, right?)
Sorry, but morals stem from our heritage as community animals. Evolution has not only made us intelligent animals but moral animals that can make decisions based on the foresight of consequences. It is more beneficial to develop and abide by positive behavior towards kin groups than to behave negatively. Our societal structure and our intelligence allows us to expand those (perceived) kin groups to become highly inclusive and almost arbitrarily large.
Those that act against society have existed much longer than the ToE. You are placing a consequence of our nature as a cause of our nature. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
nicely put.
I find that a common mistake by the A-Es, they believe the ToE requires each and every physically exhibited change be advantageous.
You seem a little dense. See prior postings.
well, I look at skull morphology rather critically - the skull has a large number of structural tasks to accomplish using finite resources, so I would think that the compromises between tasks would aggressively weed out disadvantageous alterations and at least passively disfavor neutral ones.
I would have enjoyed hearing that talk!
Under close scrutiny the potatoes do not show this. I have carefully tasted and savoured each piece of cheese without noticing any hint of mushroom. I do see some pretty amazing colours and experience same vivid visions though, so maybe ...
are you having rye bread with your starchy cheese-laden repasts?
Satan works in mysterious ways ...
Or, put another way:
"compulsively repeated error"
BTW you are exactly right in your assessment.
For them, "many words" are proof of "much knowledge."
Ironically, just a few words disturb the spider thugs and motovate their diatribes and personal attacks: In the beginning, God...
They are pitiful souls because of their hatred of God, denial of His power, and worst, their inevitable accountability to Him. This is their sin: They have heard the Truth and have denied it.
400
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.