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.”
Hehehehe, we ‘share’ DNA. You should really look into what that actually means - and the follow up studies to how much we actually ‘share’. Also to note, they found out junk DNA isn’t junk either.
Besides, why wouldn’t the same inventor use a similar recipe when it ‘was good’? ;)
(Hint: We just share protein-coding regions of high similarity with Chimps.... regions, not entire areas)
Check out “Darwin’s Doubt” and “Signature in the Cell” by Myers. He addresses all your objections. I, like you, more or less bought into the macro evolutionists arguments until I read his books.
There may be some minor evolution at the micro level, but not at the macro.
so they’re going with Aliens created life on Earth
I used to hear this one, a lot. The counter argument is “Fine, where did the alien come from?”
I find the easiest way to end arguments over the existence of a higher power (of which evolution is a subtopic) is to simply remove life, species, etc from the equation.
Where did carbon come from? Who created it?
Thanks for playing. Next!
“If there is no evolution, then why do we share the DNA of all the living creatures on the earth?”
Elements have certain properties that make them amenable for various uses.
I can imagine comparing evolutionary comparisons among PC’s, iPads, Game Boys etc...
If there is life on other planets it will be DNA/RNA centered, like here, because these molecules have physical properties that allow the functions of life to occur.
so they’re going with Aliens created life on Earth
...
But how did the aliens get here? I’d prefer one of the anthropomorphic (I don’t know if that’s the right word.) theories before aliens. I also like Asimov’s idea he used for the Last Question.
An ignorant man calculating odds is irrelevant
Funny, Liberals say the same thing about their programs. Just give it more time (and money). We just know there’s a pony underneath all this horse s***.
Your assuming that evolution is a natural process that occurs. Sadly, there is no evidence or observed proof that anything has every turned from one animal into another.
The ‘by chance part’ applies to the idea of the very first organism that formed from primordial stew. Also, never has happened or never observed happening.
You're forgetting DRUGS. They rely upon TIME, CHANCE and copious amounts of DRUGS to believe their fantasy.
Where is the news ...
Yup. I think that is the idea but I could be wrong.
In other words, if the monkey types a F in “Good night, good night! Farting is such sweet sorrow” Darn!....that would equate to the ribbon breaking and having to start over.
At some point, the “random system” has to favor success, and then success again, and then success again and again and again a million times, billion times? That would make the system not random. And a question: wasn’t the early universe (before the big bang) supposed to be completely random? What happened to make it suddenly go from a random system to an organize chaos system?
What a stupid post, and btw when I was born the world population was 2.1 billion
The odds that the universe just happened is zero as well. They actually had to create the theory of the multi-verse in order to make it possible.
If we mean Abiogenesis, then I think its clear the weight of evidence is against it being feasible (Abiogenesis means life first coming from the inorganic assuming the natural universe did not have outside help in producing life).
If we mean Common Origin of species in some first species where Abiogenesis already happened as a given, then maybe it is feasible, I am not sure.
Natural selection can't start helping overcome the odds until you have something that can take advantage of natural selection.
If I have a jar of sterilized peanut butter that is sealed against some life getting in it from the outside. I indeed have lots of amino acid and very organic stuff in there. Certainly if abiogenesis were feasible without amino acid and these complex structures given to us for free, then one would expect that life would spring up very quickly from the sterilized peanut butter jar. But that is not what we find. Abiogenesis is only considered feasible by those that need it to be feasible to support their world view. The Emprical evidence is very much against it.
“What is TIME?”
The thing that keeps everything from happening at once.
Carbon Creation
One day, after millions of years, the hydrogen fuel in a stellar core will get exhausted, by its conversion into helium. Then, the star, which has till then maintained a hydrostatic equilibrium, by balancing thermal pressure generated through fusion, against the crunch of gravity, gives in again to gravitational collapse.
The core starts heating up again until it reaches a temperature, where three helium nuclei start fusing into carbon. In this process, carbon, the element on which all of our organic life is based, is created. Through a separate pathway, some oxygen is also created through helium fusion. Thus, two of the life-supporting elements on Earth are created through fusion.
That Carbon?
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.
