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)
Your arrogance, elitism, and bigotry knows no bounds. I pity you.
And here I thought you'd read all that Creationists believe
I have. It's just that some of it is more wrong than others.
A true Christian has to accept Creationism....
No they don't.
why?
Because you're so arrogantly narrow-minded that you think that *your* interpretation of the Bible is necessarily the correct one, and any deviation is "proof" that the person is not a "real" Christian like yourself.
I don't need no stinking clergymen teaching me what I can read for myself!
...because, of course, you're so infallible that you can't possibly be mistaken in your interpretation, no need for Bible scholars to waste your time...
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!
No they're not, they're calling *you* arrogantly mistaken in your sinful pride. And they're correct.
cyawhen
I read your post....
DLC
Like? Like?
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.]
That's not my interpretation... the Bible already teaches it in that plain order. You're avoiding these statements?
Which by the way, I need to correct, I was typing on the go! :)
Creation teaches Life first, then death to sin, then the chance to be forgiven by blood sacrifice for life again!
And again, not my interpretation, just bout every "christian/islamic/judaic/zion" based religion teaches in their Books... that God created man, man sinned, then God brought salvation thru sacrifice of an animal. Without sin, we don't need a saviour, and the only proof of the foundation of sin is found in the Book of Genesis.
I'm not interpreting it in my own words... I have shown this scripture to many science teachers, math teachers, co-workers, pastors, and people in my family over the years.... anyone reading will say, "that's what it seems to say". Whether they believe it from that point on or compromise or create a level of tolerance towards it,, is then new interpretation.
And, one has to recognize sin, to repent, and recognize Christ/Immanual as the Living God and only way into the Family of God is through His personal Blood sacrifice-"Invitation" to be apart of that which we are dead to at birth!
The Bible simply teaches that... but again, only proof/documented resource of sin and it's beginning is in Creation... according to the accounts of Genesis.
If you don't believe in Genesis.... how can you properly understand and appreciate Christ and the foundation He sets up for us through out the scriptures? And then, if you don't accept the Genesis account of Creation,,, then don't you also deny the Holy Fathers allowance/introduction of rebellion and sin into a pure world? A world of perfection meaning, no death yet... no fossils.... ??
If You deny that beginning,, how can you call yourself a sinner by the Bible's definition? "Man fallen from Grace" Grace=Gods Perfect Love. If you don't accept that foundation of purity and sin, and mans spiritual death, then why do we need Christ!?
Why even humor the idea of Christian salvation by faith with the action of works as a public/private testimony? Without sin, we need no salvation! Thats an absolute!
Without Creation account written by Moses in Genesis, we have no teaching of where that sin began? (For there were no commandments but one, and they weren't on tablets of stone yet!)
One should (I won't use must, cause I don't want you insulting me with my "own religion tone"!) BUT
We should accept creation, to properly accept we are sinners according to The BIBLE? Which is where the Christian God/faith and lifestyle is based from! According to the Bible.. and many other facets of "faiths". We all need to repent of our sins, and find purity and sanctuary in a Christ/God/Peace?
But again,,, that takes us back to Creation.
Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful - just stupid).Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
Hmmmm. I read that same post as a (somewhat cynical, at times even sneering) resignation to intellectual relativism. I don't think that's "delightful" at all. Although granted there may have been something else in there, arguably "delightful", that I overlooked.
Problem is trying to push that idea anywhere. The "perfect world = no death" theory just doesn't work. DEATH IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO LIFE. No, I'm not just talking about predation. (Silly as the creationist notion of Tyrannosaurus using it's dagger like teeth to shear bamboo might be.) It goes much further than that.
Early in the development of the human brain, for instance, every cell is connected to nearly every other adjacent cell, and the propensity of a neural impulse to travel one path is the same as it traveling nearly any other path. Such a brain can coordinate no reflexes, can hold no memories and can form no thoughts. The neural activity is chaotic and random.
The working brain is formed by a process of controlled, but massive, cell DEATH, sculpting the brain into an organ that can control the body and think.
There are many, many other vital biological process that require cell death.
If you say that "perfection" allows cell death, but not the death of individuals, then one must ask "why?". The distinction is arbitrary. And still requires death among single-celled individuals. There are also animals (many insects at least) in which the death of individuals is essential to the life cycle. I'll warrant Ichneumon can give you examples. (His very screen name in fact is one example.)
Basically, if you're saying the originally created world was without death, YOU'RE MAKING THAT CREATION IRRELEVANT, at least to this one. Everything, about biology at least, would have to have been so utterly different in that world that it would have been a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT creation, not just a "more perfect" version of this one. The world (or living organisms at least) would have to have been completely REcreated to accommodate death.
The "no death" theory amounts to saying that Adam was not really a man at all. He was a different species. Indeed an utterly foreign creature in his "flesh" and "blood". (Which themselves would have been something different from "flesh" and "blood".) Yet the Bible reveals no a hint of such a difference.
What? You mean you didn't tell her to get off her lazy butt and make the damn tacos herself? [smug and-somewhat-oblivious bachelor grin]
Uh, that's not what the Big Bang theory says. The theory starts with something, not nothing. Granted it's a very, very small something, but also an extremely energetic something.
Basically the theory in itself doesn't trace the universe back to "nothing". It traces the universe back to a time a very small fraction of a second after it's (presumed) origination. As to what the universe might have originated from, whether something or nothing, the theory has nothing to say. (There are some scientific speculations about that, but AFAIK none have yet been elaborated, evaluated and implemented to the point of a full "theory". And none are strictly speaking part of the BB theory. They are additional or external to it.)
Chill out Stulty..
Solving the deep mystery's of life ain't FR's charter..
Theres humor in them there "Evos" and not a small amount in the "Creavos" either.. Step back and take a look at humans.. Funny creatures wot?... Arty Johnson(the Nazi on Rowan and Martins Laugh in) developed seriousness to a fine art..
"Really? What else does he have to say or is that it for today?"
Actually, He has many things to say today. You will find it in a piece of literature called the Bible. I was quoting from Matthew 25:23
However, I will give you an appropriate quote that I am sure God would have me say:
"Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us; we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Paul writing in II Corinthians 5:20-21
Indeed life would have been different before the fall; but, that doesn't require a completely different creation. It merely requires a different set of limits applied to that which exists. If God could make all things by speaking. He could surely alter his creation at will. Death is not a requirement of life. Death is merely something we've grown used to and to some extent count on because of the way things work for us currently.
I know it has been noted somewhere that in studies of life captured in amber, the Oxygen levels trapped in that same amber are quite substantially higher than in today's atmosphere. That tells us that the preflood world was substantially different from the current one. If God is the ultimate creator and author of the chemistry and matter that makes up us and everything around us, it's a bit of a stretch to imagine that such a being knows less than yourself about how it all works.. And it sounds more to me like you're grasping for excuses than actually thinking about your response. Not a flame, just an observation.
And here's my ADD brain trying to compose a response! LOL :)
if the world was perfect, no death, and no CELL DEATH, before Adams sin and the curse of death was set into motion among the earth. What would that have produced upto that point in time.
From what I understand, and I don't have specifics right now, but from what I understand... that wouldn't have been an incredibly long period of time from Adams creation date to His rebellion date. Probably, and I'm taking a guess.. less than a hundred years in spance.
Sincerely, I ask this, what would come about of a persons body, and surrounding habitat, applying biology studies as we know today, if there were no cell death?
And the cells just lived on, until death came into existance?
I love this... cause, I'm always learning new thinks in these forums..... I'm a visual/audio learner.. and quite frankly, this interaction is quite quenching to me! Sorry had a vain moment!!
:)
Bratty and proselytizing? Couldn't you be more insulting than that.... if you'd meet me, you'd never come to that assumption.
Brand of religion? Hmmmm
And you are right, that is over half the world... good for you! ;)
God created a perfect world to His liking, gave us free will, man chose to rebel, yes, it was in His plans.... but it's all for His glory in the end.... and not for us to argue?
;)
God is a very righteous being, and yeah, He did create you and I in His image, in His Likeness.. pretty cool, don't you think. I think that makes us the most beautiful things in the world. ;)
And sugar, if we are flawed, it's because of the curse of death due to sin, because, we took matters into our own hands! So why don't you take your insults and your assumptions.... and create your own world..... then when you get that great zeal and powerful feeling we people do, cause we enjoy being incharge of ourselves... remember, God put that there too!
Is that too complicated for you? I really don't have time for your mind and your cynicism
Bratty and proselytizing? Couldn't you be more insulting than that.... if you'd meet me, you'd never come to that assumption.
Brand of religion? Hmmmm
And you are right, that is over half the world... good for you! ;)
God created a perfect world to His liking, gave us free will, man chose to rebel, yes, it was in His plans.... but it's all for His glory in the end.... and not for us to argue?
;)
God is a very righteous being, and yeah, He did create you and I in His image, in His Likeness.. pretty cool, don't you think. I think that makes us the most beautiful things in the world. ;)
And sugar, if we are flawed, it's because of the curse of death due to sin, because, we took matters into our own hands! So why don't you take your insults and your assumptions.... and create your own world..... then when you get that great zeal and powerful feeling we people do, cause we enjoy being incharge of ourselves... remember, God put that there too!
Is that too complicated for you? I really don't have time for your mind and your cynicism.
Why don't you take that wonderful God given talent and use it for something positive, and less negative!
There's a word for a certain class of conditions where cell death does not occur as it is supposed to. That word is "CANCER". As I understand there are many tissues in the body that contain rapidly dividing cells. Such tissues would quickly take over the whole body and kill the individual in the absence of cell death. I'd guess days rather than weeks or months. The answer might even be hours or minutes if there are crucial processes involving cell death that I'm not aware of. (And there probably are.)
Without cell death the immune system certainly could not work as it is supposed to.
Wouldn't that cause the death of the bamboo? Or is bamboo exempt and allowed to die?
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.