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.”
This Fight Club stuff has nothing to do with anything.
I guess you’re being humorous.
>>No.
Yes. The RNA cited in the quotation was ALL isolated from Tetrahymena:
“From 2 Q of Tetrahymena, 0.5 ig (3.7 pmoles) of
pure IVS RNA was routinely isolated.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC320658/pdf/nar00378-0064.pdf
>>they then synthesized RNA of the same sequence
Please cite the text from the methodology which documents the synthesis process.
You know how to use Copy and Paste, don’t you?
>>but atomic precursors makes no sense in this context.
Fundamental Atomic elements ring any bells?
Those are the observable taxonomic precursors of molecules.
Once again you play semantic games sans being able or willing to answer the question honestly. But, I'll rephrase:
Has Dr. Cech (or anyone else) manufactured, from unliving atomic or molecular components, RNA which, after having been manufactured, autonomously produces exact copies of itself from unliving atomic or molecular components - as required to demonstrate the hypothetical process of evolutionary abiogenesis?
>>This Fight Club stuff has nothing to do with anything.
Au contraire — It succinctly demonstrates your knowledge of real-world splicing is incomplete.
If anyone believed these numbers and math you’ve shown; the state LOTTERIES would go out of business!
We have mammals that can fly and mammals that cannot walk.
Caan't we leave the angels to dance on their own pinheads for a while and get back to the BIG picture?
Exact copies would be able to produce other LIVING copies.
I seem to recall the historic nature of the worshipers of Created Things is to howl their pride 24x7 in the context of such an accomplishment but...
https://www.google.com/#tbm=nws&q=Artificial+Living+RNA+Synthesized
{ crickets crickets crickets }
>>Living things do not need reproduce exact copies and don’t.
Does a species need to produce copies that are exact enough to replicate the replication process selected for the species?
Not very competitive if it can't.
“This step still remains unverified to science as of this writing.”
http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/how-could-dna-have-evolved
Kinda sums the situation up.
All this self-worshiping STEMucation - and they can’t yet produce a single living molecule out of non-living materials.
Hmm.
Looks like the evolutionary abiogenesis model needs more splicing from top to bottom!
“Au contraire — It succinctly demonstrates your knowledge of real-world splicing is incomplete.”
You’d need to explain this.
“Caan’t we leave the angels to dance on their own pinheads for a while and get back to the BIG picture?”
Sounds good, what’s the “BIG picture”?
.
Why, I was just strolling through a junk yard the other day when a wind kicked up and assembled a Boing 787 out of the trash, that was then brought aloft by that same breeze!
(honest)
.
.
FreeRepublic’s Spell/posting function is itself an excellent html utility!
.
>>IE plants and animals.
Which came first, the heterotroph or the autotroph?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=heterotrophs+and+autotrophs
Romans 1 New Living Translation (NLT)20 , x For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
>>You’d need to explain this.
Not to anyone who’s seen the frames of whatever it was that Tyler Durden spliced into those family films — thus demonstrably contradicting your assertion that “Splicing film does not add a frame.”
Splicing certainly CAN add frames, or bases, or genes, or code... into whatever it is that’s being spliced.
;-/
True. Never saw it or read the book.
they aren’t numbers I’ve thrown out0- they are numbers arrived at by most major mathematicians of the world- there was a symposium of mathematicians in the 70’s i believe that concluded the same thing- Demski is also the premier mathematician today who has established that the odds are so far from the realm of possibility that there isn’t even a slight chance tat it could happen
At least the lottery is winnable- the odds are nowhere near as bad as evolution’s probability
it doesn’t convert rich text to html though as far as I know? When i copy a website that uses colored words, and numbers like 10 to the 100’th power or something, or use symbols- the site i linked to automatically puts the correct html tags in -just makes it quicker to post without having to put in all the tags yourself
you two are talking above my head about splicing, but I’ll attempt a question here-
how often has it been demonstrated that evolution added non species specific coding/information via splicing during mutations/mistakes to allow a species to move beyond it’s own kind?
Which is it? “Can add” code? Or “Does routinely add code”?
Remember also, we’re talking that it would have to happen billions of times as species evolved from mere chemicals- if it were so common, surely there would be ample proof of it happening in nature? not only that, but each species has several microbiological layers of defense to protect it against foreign code- or added code at best- at worst- the species dies from added info or is sickened-
the point i guess is that just because it can be done doesn’t mean it was done, billions of times in the past during some evolutionary event- and the lack of evidence is another strong nail in the coffin, in addition to the mathematical biological, chemical and thermodynamic impossibilities associated with the TOE-
just the mathematical impossibility alone should be enough to shut down the discussion- in one of my posts, it points out that the TOE is always having to grasp at thin air to prop itself up- such as stating “Given enough time, evolution could have overcome such and such” but as the post stated- we see that no, there is nowhere enough time to overcome these problems for even a scant few issues to ‘work themselves out’- so the argument that “Because it’s not absolute zero means that it ‘could have happened’ at some point’ isn’t a valid argument
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.