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.”
whatever kid goodbye
for anyone that may still be interested- there is no evidence that most lateral gene transference is anything more than viral infection/colonization resulting in symbiotic relationships and the whole idea that lateral gene transference shows evolution- not even evolution scientists studying that issue agree with that wild claim as pointed out several times already-
[I Took a Gender Studies Course
So You Don't Have To]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlGSG0q-Fh4
If you want "civil discussion" about science then leave your Y.E.D. Newspeak Dictionary (2017 edit) in the Religion section (Class 200 – Religion) where it belongs.
Science is: Class 500 – Science.
“Sorry you missed those discussions.”
Sorry you’re missing out on Myers arguments - you might learn something you didn’t know... or are you one of those “settled science” guys?
Can you provide an example of an "inevitable reaction" that results in an Abiogeneiss event?
Where chemistry can be shown to "complexify" there scientists think may lie a path from chemistry to biology.
Got any particular "scientists" you can point to who speak in terms of "complexifying," or did you just pull this term our of your ass?
I am 35-year career scientist: a biologist, a chemist, and a biochemist with graduate and undergraduate degrees and I can't think of one scientist among the many I know in life sciences who would recognize your terminology or have any idea what you are talking about.
FReegards!
Sadly, there are literal mountains of evidence which some people studiously ignore & deny.
What that evidence shows is that most all evolution happens over long periods with many intermediate forms.
Sure, some people pretend there are no intermediate forms, but only by keeping their eyes tightly shut.
It's like reading the evolution creation genesis -- or something -- of a thought process .
1. Functional Information
2. Encoder
3. Error Correction
4. Decoder
DNA contains multi-layered information and metadata (information about how to use the information in the context of the related data) and is a more efficient storage medium than anything we’ve created. So here you have instructional data that must be translated to perform specific functions at specific times (a system that describes itself and interprets its description).
Genes are a symbolic medium - and the semantic closure is the correlation that constrains and conveys what the genes represent. For example, codons only represent amino acids if you have the system in place to interpret the functional relationship of the medium (aaRS).
Consider the data input for a CAD model that is then created (physically expressed) with a 3D printer or rapid prototype machine. Now appreciate the information transfer from an idea, to the symbolic medium of software, to the specific design – the translations that must occur – and the system(s) that must already be in place to interpret the functional relationships with the proper correlation and constraints.
This would be like blind chance creating a new language with an illiterate 'nature' already having the ability to understand (although it is mindless). Keep in mind, this is a language that codes precise plans in a very specific order necessary to manifest this amazing thing we call life.
It's at this point many will state that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. But here's the rub - if initial life had purpose and reason - why would all further iterations of life just be genetic mistakes that lived without reason leading to our human consciousness?
We are left with the question, "Does human consciousness and conscience ultimately come from mindlessness?" and the philosophical ramifications of our response - the worldview that follows...
Asserts the worshiper of Y.E.D. who doesn't even understand the concept of gene splicing - and pretends Natural Selection and Fitness aren't part of the vocabulary of Evolutionary science.
>>Where chemistry can be shown to “complexify”
You mean moving against entropy in the context of increasing one system’s complexity at the expense of another?
We will never know as much as we don’t know. PERIOD.
Yeah but that's what makes the inquisitive nature we were created with FUN!
Nothing wrong with trying to understand and appreciate the beautiful intricacy of Creation - until we start worshiping what we ~think, we "know"... and assuming dominion over the faith of others with our ignorance, anyhow.
Donald Rumsfeld, is that you?
Well, he got lambasted for speaking the Truth, you DO go to War with the Military you have.
The only error was we weren’t dragged into it like WWII.
We chose to go to Iraq with the Military we had, unarmored Humvee’s and all that Jazz.
Just sayin’...
>>We chose to go to Iraq
Quack, Waddle...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=halliburton+rebuilding+iraq
DICK!
Oh here we go again with another stuffed shirt who thinks only he does "real" science. You intellectual pygmies are so predictable.
Real science did away with the concept of abiogenesis with Redi in the 1600's, Pasteur in the 1800s, and with the failures of the Miller-Urey experiments in the 1950's.
Your challenge is to show how you create life from that which is non-life. I'll be particularly interested to see how you over come inherently self-destructive "primordial" environments, or if you even had the sparingly possible success of creating the simplest amino acids, how you would favor selection in all the randomness of biologically active levo- forms from competitively present non-biologically active dextro- forms.
"Complexify" that!
It's OK, we'll just sit back and wait. I'll get the popcorn.
FReegards!
The evolution answer is time and chance/trial and error. Before I got saved I believed in the religion of evolution. People barely understand the number 1000 let alone the enormous numbers involved in evolutionary probability so they just believe what they don't understand.
So I watched an evolution video by J Bronowski(sp) about how termites could develop radio telescopes over time if needed. I believed like the little evolution disciple that I was.
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.