Posted on 06/15/2017 12:50:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
Zero times anything is zero. The odds of life just happening by chance are zero.
This universe just springing into being by chance is impossible. It takes a leap of blind faith to believe in evolution, unguided or guided. Of course, there are tiny changes within kinds. It seems to me usually when the evolutionists make their case, they point to these tiny changes.
The analogies to the improbability of evolution by a random process are endless.
A hurricane blows through a junkyard and assembles a fully functioning 747 jet.
Scrabble pieces are randomly spilled out on the board, and they spell out the Declaration of Independence word for word. (Source: Dr. Stephen Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt).
A monkey sits at a typewriter and types thousands of pages. He types out word for word, with no mistakes, the entire works of Shakespeare.
The odds against our universe, of the earth, of the creation, to have just come into being with no intelligent design behind the grand scheme are greater than all of these impossible scenarios.
Forget the works of Shakespeare. What are the odds of a monkey randomly typing away simply spelling the 9-letter word “evolution” by chance? That doesn’t sound too hard, does it?
Dr. Scott M. Huse, B.S., M.S., M.R.E., Th.D., Ph.D., who holds graduate degrees in computer science, geology, and theology, wrote a book about creation/evolution back in the early 1980s, The Collapse of Evolution. Huse has done extensive study on these questions of random probability. I had the privilege of interviewing him about it for Dr. D. James Kennedy’s television special, “The Case for Creation” (1988). It was a type of Scopes Trial in reverse---filmed on location in Tennessee, in the very courtroom where the 1925 monkey trial took place.
Later, Huse created a computer program to see what are the odds of a monkey typing the word “evolution”? He notes that the odds are 1 in 5.4 trillion, which statistically is the same thing as zero. Any casino that offered such horrible odds would lose customers quickly, because no one would ever win. Forgive my bluntness, but the suckers have to win something before they start losing big.
Here’s what Scott told me in an email: “The typical personal computer keyboard has 104 keys, most of which are not letters from the alphabet. However, if we ignore that fact and say the monkey can only hit keys that are letters of the alphabet, he has a one in twenty-six chance of hitting the correct letter each time.
“Of course, he has to hit them in the correct sequence as well: E then V then O, etc. Twenty-six to the power of nine (the number of letters in the word “evolution”) equals 5,429,503,678,976.
“So, the odds of him accidentally typing just the 9-letter word ‘evolution’ are about 1 in about 5.4 trillion …From a purely mathematical standpoint, the bewildering complexity of even the most basic organic molecules [which are much more complicated than a nine-letter word] completely rules out the possibility of life originating by mere chance.”
Take just one aspect of life---amino acids and protein cells. Dr. Stephen Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science at Cambridge University. In his New York Times bestselling book, Darwin’s Doubt (2013), Meyer points out that “the probability of attaining a correct sequence [of amino acids to build a protein molecule] by random search would roughly equal the probability of a blind spaceman finding a single marked atom by chance among all the atoms in the Milky Way galaxy---on its face clearly not a likely outcome.” (p. 183)
And this is just one aspect of life, the most basic building-block. In Meyer’s book, he cites the work of engineer-turned-molecular-biologist, Dr. Douglas Axe, who has since written the book, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed (2016).
In the interview I did with Scott Huse long ago, he noted, “The probability of life originating through mere random processes, as evolutionists contend, really honestly, is about zero…. If you consider probability statistics, it exposes the naiveté and the foolishness, really, of the evolutionary viewpoint.”
Dr. Charles Thaxton was another guest on that classic television special from 1988. He is a scientist who notes that life is so complex, the chances of it arising by mere chance is virtually impossible. Thaxton, now with the Discovery Institute, has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, and a post-doctorate degree in molecular biology and a Harvard post-doctorate in the history and philosophy of science.
Thaxton notes, “I’d say in my years of study, the amazing thing is the utter complexity of living things….Most scientists would readily grant that however life happened, it did not happen by chance.”
The whole creation points to the Creator. Huse sums up the whole point: “Simply put, a watch has a watchmaker and we have a Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ.”
>>When there was just one life form, there were no ‘species’ of life
Speciation includes the ability to identify and procreate with similar life forms.
RNA Molecules which were not able to procreate with one another would still be molecular life forms - but different molecular species.
” - E being quantified state.”
Are you sure? ;-)
Obviously you are proposing a physics “trick” test question. I did find a couple of older papers in my collection relating to E and infinity. I am not going to take the time to dig out the formulas, descriptions etc. To nice a day outside and I have to go meet my wife. BUT in general I think Einie missed(a bit) it on E and infinity. I think it was Jim Carter that wrote some stuff on the question. Some day I do hope we can delve into this further.
Mean while go enjoy 12 Monkees on SyFy. It is a hoot.
>>Are you sure? ;-)
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Eigenstate&t=hz&ia=definition
Yep.
What happens to the relative rate of T as E increases in a system?
>>Obviously you are proposing a physics “trick” test question.
Nope. No tricks or “papers” required. Just a simple statement that indicates a basic conceptual understanding...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
>>I am not going to take the time to dig out the formulas, descriptions etc.
Yeah. You’re full of manure.
My question isn’t a trick - it just requires the ability to articulate a basic understanding of Time in the context of Special Relatively which, despite your vociferously pretentious and dramatic performance, you demonstrably lack.
You and your 12 fictitious monkeys have a nice day!
If the allowable time is infinity less one second and there are 800 trillion consecutive processes required for evolution to work and all but 30 occur with absolute certainty the probability evolution is responsible for life is just over 4%, given the remaining 30 have a 90% probability. Of course, no natural process in an open system occurs with 100% certainty. These folks need more dimensions than time and space. Looks like they better go back to beating chicken entrails on a rock to summon their god.
More along the lines of inbreeding and no significant opposition. Such conditions breed stupidity.
P.S.
Plagiarists FAIL.
>>If the allowable time is infinity less one second
All seconds are equal, are they?
bookmark
“Speciation includes the ability to identify and procreate with similar life forms.”
So organisms that reproduce asexually aren’t part of a species! (That’s a rhetorical question pointing out your ignorance).
“RNA Molecules which were not able to procreate with one another would still be molecular life forms - but different molecular species.”
Why do you think RNA molecules can’t “procreate with one other”?
What does species mean?
“RNA Molecules which were not able to procreate with one another would still be molecular life forms - but different molecular species.”
I want to not forget to say, yes.
And if they reproduce, they are life.
Those complex products interacting in complex ways are not alive - to quote Bones from Star Trek, "They're dead Jim". And it's not as simple as some chemicals interacting here on earth or in space.
Look, we know DNA has the following
1. Functional Information
2. Encoder
3. Error Correction
4. Decoder
This is a big problem for a purely naturalistic explanation for how life arose. You have information in a symbolic representation and a reading frame code. But beyond this, a formalization of semantic closure would need to be in place prior to the first cell. This cannot just happen by accident.
A reasonable answer to those questions would be. “I don’t know”. I’m always surprised how many people find that answer both threatening and unsatisfactory.
Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA realized how impossible it was that it just happened by chance. There HAD to be a designer. Of course he couldn’t attribute it to God, so he uses the idea of “pansperma” - where aliens, realizing that their planet was doomed, put their DNA on spaceships and sent them out, hoping they would reach a suitable planet.
“Where did carbon come from? Who created it?”
Like the one about the scientist declaring to God that he too can create life, so he challenges God to a race.
God picks up a clump of dirt.
The scientist picks up a clump of dirt.
God looks over and says “Hey - get your own dirt!”
Nice. I’ve asked, if all matter was once contained within a single point, what happened to cause the stable point to become unstable? No new matter. No forces yet created. What impelled the Big Bang?
Ive been saying that also...its odd that they call on time and chance as agents....but is there really chance or is it all predetermined.?...and what really is time...?.its the non old school religionists who just have different gods(i.e. overriding powers)all the while saying they are not religious...
The first bit of energy or matter had to be created by a eternal and intelligent Creator.
the devil’s advocate would say ‘does that not apply to the
Creator as well...’
Everything around right now, the computer, desk, chair....they are made of atoms of different types. These atoms are infinitely small as I learned in engineering school, however the atoms themselves are largely empty space. Everything around you is made of teeny tiny things that themselves are almost entirely empty of matter. These colliders, CERN and such are finding yet tiny-et particles make up the empty space which is what little exists in the largely empty atoms. Crazy right and there is no reason to expect this all won’t get ever more confounding.
There was once a people that built a high tower to challenge the preeminence of God, God responded by confusing their language.
=> Science on the sub-atomic level or greater universe level is something we will never fully understand, because the solutions become ever more inexplicable -like a confused language.
That’s my theory of the universe from first principles.
As such: evolution; primarily, natural selection over time, is premised upon a delusional concept of linear time coupled with cause always preceding effect.
Given faith in an all powerful God; why not an all powerful God that created Mankind, all that we perceive preceded Mankind, and all that we perceive will follow Mankind ALL at the same time, ALL according to plan, with much we will never understand let alone possess the ability to comprehend?
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.