Posted on 07/28/2019 10:50:40 AM PDT by Tennessean4Bush
Evolution is not based on anything
I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.
There is no way that throwing a bomb into a bauxite mine that just happens to contain some hydrocarbons, iron and copper will produce a fully fueled 747 ready to fly, no matter how many times it’s tried.
Yet this is how “rationalists” (HAHAHAHA) think the universe and all its components were formed.
Entropy is universal, and order cannot by definition arise from disorder, no matter how long you hold your breath and stomp your little footies.
There was nothing, then *something* exploded. What exploded, and where did it come from?
your link doesn’t work ... could you post the correct link, i’m interested in what you’re trying to point to ...
You are correct. Pabulum also plays a substantive role in the Theory of Evolution.
Goodness. I sure wish we could read and learn at your feet. Do you have a Youtube channel, or a collection of books or essays you have written? I know we are probably a lost cause, but please send us a link so we might somehow approach your magnificence.
obviously you have no scientific background.
obviously you have no scientific background.
“You are correct.”
Absolutely.
Nor do I. Plus all the earth and it's symbiotic relations would have to occur simultaneously. Our very DNA is designed, not analog. Much as I thought about Darwin, I didn't think very long and hard. More holes than a sponge.
Your analogy is flawed.Respectfully, you still need another analogy, because this one is still fundamentally flawed.No, it is not. The lottery is just one example. What are the odds of somebody being in a plane crash and surviving? Fairly poor, but to the survivors, it does not matter. Their statistical state is they survived. Same goes with earthquakes or any other event after the fact.
To the survivors, it matters the most, and is the most meaningful to them (as opposed to others who weren't ever involved directly or indirectly). In fact, the greater the odds against survival, or avoidance of catastrophe of an event like this, the proportionally more many survivors will wrestle with the supposed meaning behind it, no? You and I could both cite example after example that demonstrates this. Now, couple this search for meaning with which many survivors wrestle, with a simple exercise of calculating the odds of surviving a plane crash. (You'd of course add up all the plane crashes, and put the numbers of people involved in those crashes in the denominator. Then you'd add up the ones who survived in the numerator, and you'd have an approximate statistical percentage of the odds of surviving.) Thankfully, we have just that statistic calculated for us:
"According to a report from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, among passengers unlucky enough to experience a plane crash between 1983 and 2000, 95.7 percent survived." (reference)Surviving these types of events against seeming great odds causes our species to wrestle with the fundamental questions involving the meaning of life and the divine. And, you are referencing things as analogies (e.g. lotteries, earthquakes, plane crashes) that are not anywhere close to the odds being discussed in the video (i.e. 1/10^70 or more, iirc). While only a few tough souls are not affected by surviving an earthquake or plane crash, I can't imagine anyone who truly was convinced of the odds like those discussed in the video, who would not do some serious soul searching. So again, I think your analogy actually makes the opposite point.
Back to the original post, challenging Darwin's theory mathematically is pointless. His theory was left behind in the 1930's when evolutionary biology became a discipline. It hasn't stayed put. It's evolving too, with molecular biology and gene sequencing playing a huge role in understanding.I disagree that it is pointless. The discussion in the video is compelling, and while your observation that Darwin's theory has been left behind in academia, it certainly hasn't been left behind in popular culture. It has been one of the fundamental opinions driving the materialistic world view for over a hundred years, no?
And you would be incorrect
Gator, you have been brainwashed, with all due respect.
bfl
sorry- i had bookmarked that in my profile page- they must not have the site active anymore-
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence."
I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (New York: NW Research Publications, Inc., 1984), p. 205 (as quoted in Vance Ferrell, The Evolution Handbook (Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont TN, 2001) p. 260
In order to circumvent the problem of statistical zero, evolutionists often argue that "Given enough time, anything can happen." This is not a rational argument. It proves nothing. It is a reference to practically infinite periods of time that lie beyond statistical zero.
"A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of avoiding the conclusion that the probability of a self-producing state is zero ... When for practical purposes the condition of infinite time and matter has to be invoked, the concept of probability is annulled. By such logic we can prove anything ... "
P.T. Mora, The Folly of Probability, as quoted in Origins 13(2):98-104 (1986) Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Lind University, 1986. Emphasis supplied.
In fact the chances of the chance formation of just DNA - much less all of the applications of DNA - are so remote, they are far beyond statistical zero.
"This means that 1089190 DNA molecules, on average, must form to provide the one chance of forming the specific DNA sequence necessary to code 124 proteins. 1089190 DNAs would weigh 1089147 more than the earth ... A quantity of DNA this colossal could never have been formed.
R.L. Wysong, The Creation Evolution Controversy, (Inquiry Press, Midland MI, 1976) p.115, as quoted in The Evolution Handbook (Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont TN, 2001) p. 261.
But evolutionists argue that there are a multitude of factors that effect and direct changes in species, and the world is a dynamic and changing environment with innumerable forces that cannot be predicted.
This argument is impotent to contest the statistical facts. Because no matter what grandiose theories are proposed, ultimately the sequence of the DNA molecule had to have been worked out and installed by chance and elements until the proper sequence was produced. And there are 1089190 random possibilities to be addressed before deriving the formulae for only 125 proteins. And there are at least 20,000 proteins and enzymes written into the DNA molecule.
And that is only the formula for the proteins. Evolution must still conjure up a sufficient number of fortunate mutations to create the machinery to locate the appropriate protein, copy it and reproduce it. Just locating the appropriate protein is impossibly difficult for anything but supernatural intelligence. The actual length of the DNA strand is
“Gator, you have been brainwashed, with all due respect.”
So you can’t make an intelligent response.
No, that would be “guided evolution”, which isn’t really a scientific theory, but a philosophical proposition.
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.