The Odds of Evolution Are Zero

Townhall.com ^ | JUne 15. 2017 | Jerry Newcombe

[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.”

[Bob434]

[[But the facts of modern science reveal the plasticity and reproductive capacity of non- living dynamic systems at the margins of life.]]

That’s a fancy way of riducling hte past science which hit the impossibility walls head on, by claiming it is ‘antiquated’ and ‘out of touch with new modern findings’ and that the ‘new evidence indicates that nature somehow was able to supernaturally violate upper probaBILITY limits in mathematical realm by beating the odds, chemical realm, thermodynamic realm and biological realm’ it ‘somehow’ was able ignore all those impossibilities and pull off miracles- but we ‘just don’t know how yet’ but ‘the evidence is getting close to solving it’

There are no practical examples of nature violating natural laws to create the impossible, but that’s ok- just claim the old science is antiquated and out of touch with the reality of the ‘new science’- it’s an appeal to the ‘new and improved’ that looks down it’s noses at the old (which incidentally looked at the problems every which way possible and concluded it was mathematically impossible, biologically impossible, chemically impossible etc-) The ‘new science’ doesn’t explain how, it just makes the assertion that it’s been explained already- while providing no concrete examples-

Somehow ‘non living dynamic systems’ (whatever that means-) was able to spring to life and spark eons of natural law violating processes that resulted in Einstein and Donald Trump

[DungeonMaster]

Please reference the chapter and verse in Genesis where it says the world is 6000 years old?

I'll pass on that silly game. If you believe in an old universe you can't believe in 7 literal days of creation as are clearly described in Genesis.

[HLPhat]

It (6000 years) is either in the book or it isn’t.

Got any other straw dogma from the temple of Y.E.D. you’d like to try and prop up?

[DungeonMaster]

It (6000 years) is either in the book or it isn’t.

It's there. Anyone familiar with this argument knows exactly how it is there and has decided that either God isn't quite awesome enough to pull off such a feat or that it would be deceptive to pull off such a feat and not leave proof. Even the pope said "God isn't a magician and can't do it".

I and the rest of my fellow fundamentalist Christians are people of faith who believes that the universe is barely more than a weekend project to The Lord God Almighty.

[Heartlander]

If we were built by a process which did not have us in mind but is merely tuned for survival, then, like it or not, there must be a Darwinian explanation for our thoughts and behavior. Put another way, one cannot claim that Darwinism made our brains but has no bearing on the brain’s contents.

Darwin knew this when he wrote The Descent of Man and attempted to describe where we derive our morality. (See also Evolutionary Ethics) Darwin had to account for how this mindess process he described in Origin could create human consciousness and conscience. The scientists I quoted/paraphrased are describing the worldview one must adopt to except our creation from mindlessness…

[HLPhat]

>>it’s there

Nope. The assertion that the world is 6000 years old is a Y.E.D. (Young Earthster Dogmatists) doctrine. Y.E.D. doctrine is a created thing worshiped in the spirit described in Romans chapter 1 - not a fact articulated in Genesis.

[Heartlander]

*accept - not except

[HLPhat]

>>7 literal days of creation as are clearly described in Genesis.

Time is a derivative function of state-change that progresses relative to E in the inertial frame(s) in which it is observed.

Whose inertial frame did those "days" transpire within - and how relatively long was each of those "days" compared to those which transpired in the context of the Sun making one revolution around the Earth?

[Bob434]

[[It’s there. Anyone familiar with this argument knows exactly how it is there]]

Precisely- ignore the hecklers- their argument fails at nephesh chayyah= no death of higher vertebrates before the fall- Had there been death before the fall, man and his predecessors would have had to die- many many many times over as he was evolving from lifeless chemicals to Adam- The bible makes clear there was no death of vertebrates before the fall

[HLPhat]

Per Special Relativity - What happens to T as E approaches infinity, Bob?

[HLPhat]

>>there must be a Darwinian explanation for our thoughts and behavior.

Hence the BEHAVIOR part in the title of this classic text on the subject: 

https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Evolution-Behavior-Martin-Daly/dp/0871507676

 

 

 

[Bob434]

sorry- are you still here?

[HLPhat]

>>The bible makes clear there was no death of vertebrates before the fall

Sharks must've been on quite a literal diet.

The Bible also makes literally "clear" that men were literally expelled from Eden - The Garden of God...

Gen 3:24
24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. 
NIV

...which is literally a contradiction in the context of:

Ezek 28:11-13

11 The word of the Lord came to me: 12 "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what the Sovereign Lord says:
"'You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;

NIV

 

[Bob434]

Yawn- goodbye kid-

[HLPhat]

>>are you still here?

Are you still regurgitating the NewSpeak dictionary from section 200 of the Temple of Y.E.D.’s “science” library?

[HLPhat]

>>Yawn- goodbye kid-

Was the king of Tyre literally in the Garden of Eden or not, YEDster?

[Elsie]

... in the context of the Sun making one revolution around the Earth?

You make Copernicus cry

[Elsie]

...which is literally a contradiction in the context of:

HMMMmmm...

I miss another one.

[Bob434]

[[A day is a day.]]

Correct- Here’s the evidence paraphrased ad condensed some from the following site http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/did-creation-take-place-6-literal-days:

1: “Yom” when coupled with a number (ie: day one, second day etc) always means one literal 24 hour day throughout the entire bible- there are no exceptions to this and no reason to believe the account in genesis is any different than the rest of the bible when it mentions Yom coupled with a number

2: God set aside the 7’th DAY as a DAY of rest- the same Yom plus a number mentioned in previous Yom + numbers mentioned previously- The sabbath certainly did not last a million or more years- it lasted on literal 24 hour day- there is no reason to believe that this sabbath DAY was any shorter than the previously mentioned days

3: God states that plants were created on the 3’rd DAY- and that the sun was created on 4’th DAY- Long age advocates would have us believe plants survived for 1000’s or millions of years without sunshine? Planet musta been perty cold without sunshine all those years huh?

4: Many plants require insects to pollinate them- Yet insects were not created until the 6’th DAY- Are we to believe plants survived 1000’s or millions of years without aNY means of being pollinated? Some plants even require insects to survive-

5: “day and night,” “evening and morning,” “light and darkness”- all literal 24 hour DAYS- not 1000’s to millions of years-

http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/did-creation-take-place-6-literal-days

[HLPhat]

Well at least it didn’t get his feathers burned off.