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.”
>>For the same reasons as many other chemical processes
Which is, WHAT?
>>hide behind a cloak of stupidity
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=socratic+method+of+questioning
The Socratic Method is an amazingly practical way of exposing pretentious poodlectuals, like you.
So let's see if I understand your attitude:
And all those arrogant insults are your method for defending what idea, exactly, relating to this thread?
IOW, are you here to explain how the true "odds of evolution" are greater than zero, or not, and why?
Here is far more on the 2nd law of thermodynamics than I ever cared to learn.
"Complexification" can result -- when an energy source (i.e., the Sun) whose increasing entropy allows entropy to decrease (i.e., on Earth) via certain chemical reactions.
Of course, you know all that, but have chosen to weaponize it as a blunt instrument to insult me and avoid making your own serious argument.
Why is that?
But you've used no "Socratic Method" -- none, zero, nada -- at best you've used a sarcastic method, but what it's really: a stochastic method for randomly selecting insults so you can avoid like the plague making any valid points of your own.
Seriously, why do you do that?
Evidently you find questions you can’t answer to be oppressive and insulting.
Why is that Professor Poodle?
>>an article which has no relevance to this thread.
An article on a practical methodology for demonstrating
abiogenesis has no relevance to the odds of the process of natural selection in evolution.
Lol. Maybe in BroJoe land. Here in reality land a paper like that, or the inability to produce one, is quite relevant.
Seriously, why do you do that?
============================
In fact, Socrates himself thought that questioning was the only defensible form of teaching.
In teaching, teachers can use Socratic questioning for at least two purposes:
To deeply probe student thinking, to help students begin to distinguish what they know or understand from what they do not know or understand (and to help them develop intellectual humility in the process).
To foster students' abilities to ask Socratic questions, to help students acquire the powerful tools of Socratic dialogue, so that they can use these tools in everyday life (in questioning themselves and others). To this end, teachers can model the questioning strategies they want students to emulate and employ. Moreover, teachers need to directly teach students how to construct and ask deep questions. Beyond that, students need practice to improve their questioning abilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning
Seriously, how's that humility thing coming along Professor Poodledorf?
I would have thought (like an “E” here) that this thread would have gone extinct by now, due to lack of diversity in it’s DNA: so few posters and repliers.
Oh the shark has
Pretty teeth dear...
https://youtu.be/28ULUQgxJ5M
What did they eat in the summer before the fall?
No, I never feel "oppresed", but all of your posts are deliberately insulting, which puts the lie to any possibility of your using a "Socratic method ".
Your methods are far from "Socratic", instead merely insulting.
So you have fantacised & weaponized a paper which might explain something about abiogenisis, then used your fantasy paper as a blunt instrument to insult me, all in the name of Socrates??
My, aren't you, well... special?
SMH.
The odds of you learning anything from the process of discovering whether or not such a paper exists are evidently zero.
But, despite your unbridled ego & arrogance, you are no Socrates, not even a decent teacher.
Your only realy talent is insults, which is doubtless why you exercise it so often.
So what you here pretend is your "Socratic method " is, in fact, nothing of real value.
That's why you would do much better by simply stating your opinions reasonably, then responding to questions or challenges as they arise, FRiend.
Leave out the insults, they don't enhance your case.
😂
But I don't care if your fantasy exists or not, because it's irrelevant to the question of "odds".
Indeed, "odds" themselves are irrelevant to the question of what & how life first appeared on Earth.
What matters instead is a form of Murphy's law: if it can happen, eventually it will.
I asked very a reasonable Socratic question:
HLPhat: "Why would a process culminating in abiogenesis not necessarily violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?"
To which you inanely replied:
"I'll ask again: why do you hide behind a cloak of stupidity"
7/9/2017, 7:03:31 AM · 692 of 717
BroJoeK to HLPhat
Was Socrates "hiding behind a cloak of stupidity", Professor Poodledorf?
Well let’s see what kind of a teacher you are, Bro!
Please explain to Bob why the process of Evolution through Natural Selection doesn’t necessarily violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
necessarily ???
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.