Mathematicians PROVE evolution IMPOSSIBLE.

[Neogaia777]

Perhaps for another thread, but I am of the opinion that emotion is a characteristic of the physical person.

So given that God is also a Man and this Man was with God, and was God, and He was with God in the beginning, and through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made; I would agree with you.

But in so far as I am talking about a philosophical Creator God, and not yet encroaching on the possibility of this Creator also being a Man, I think it is best to leave the emotions out of the equation.

Most people do, but, I think it very important that we do not, cause I think we are in error on that, but, we'll probably just have to "agree to disagree"...

God Bless!

 

[Anguspure]

The real question is and still remains, what is the actual odds and possibility of life from non-life, and it could be as improbable as Anguspure says, and we could be the only ones... Or, it also could very well be that the possibility of life coming from non-life is fairly common...

We just don't know right now, and that is the problem and what it hinges on...? But, I believe either way you go, you run into "God" in either case, by the numbers of either...

God Bless!

I think with the Creator in the equation, life that we don't yet know about is more probable than not.

Perhaps from a theological view I would consider that any other life is not morally accountable, but nevertheless the Creator does seem to be in the habit of making things exist for His eyes only.

 

[Anguspure]

Most people do, but, I think it very important that we do not, cause I think we are in error on that, but, we'll probably just have to "agree to disagree"...

God Bless!

Happy birthday BTW.

 

[Neogaia777]

Happy birthday BTW.

Oh, why, thank you very much, your the first to say so, thanks...

I really should be getting to bed and not stay up all night (again) with threads, so, that I will get up and be able to do something special for my B-day tomorrow...

Thanks though,

God Bless!

 

[Everybodyknows]

Number of planets in the universe 1/10 ^ 50

Odd's of evolution happenning. 1/10 ^ 2 825 000

There is a problem here. He doesn't define a starting point for life. The only probabilities he gives are for a large protein (1/10 ^ 113) and the 25000 enzymes in the human body (1/10 ^ 2 825 000).
Neither of these are the probability of life from non-life. We need to define what the first life is to be able to say anything about it chance of arising naturalistically. Is it RNA or peptides? Unfortunately science hasn't yet proposed a mechanism for life arising for us to apply statistics to and be able to say whether it was likely or unlikely. To use a deck of cards analogy, we are trying to calculate the probability of a hand of an unknown number of cards from a deck of unknown size.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Edit: Double post

 

[friend of]

As Everybodyknows points out above, Abiogenesis is the problem. I don't think any group or organization has been able to replicate the events surrounding the mythological scientific holy grail of unliving-to-living cells/RNA. You would think it would be possible, considering that we live in an age of such vast technological achievement, that if it were possible for man to make something living from something unliving that we would have done so already, based on the theoretical conditions that were in place at abiogenesis.

It's funny. This reminds me of an atheist and theist arguing that God created the universe. Atheist was all like, "No! it was the big bang!" and the christian was like "No, it was God that created the big bang!" but they were basically in agreeance that the Universe started somewhere. The only difference was that the christian believed there was an intelligence behind the universe and the atheist didn't. It's impossible for me not to agree with the ID position though.

Fun fact: Universe is comprised of the prefix Uni- (one, single) and the suffix -verse (word, reading)

So the universe kinda means "single word" and it was brought into existence by the word of God

 

[Sandy Zalecki]

Most scientific laws prove there is no such thing as evolution but scientists will not even believe in there own laws. There is a law called the Law of Entropy that says matter will fall to it's lowest state without adding energy. As an example, when you through a jigsaw puzzle on the floor it will not fall together but in a more chaotic state unless we pick it up off the floor and add energy to it to put it together. How could a big bang theory even happen without someone adding a lot of energy and putting things together in a very detailed way. There own laws mitigate against evolution and point to a creator.

 

[pgp_protector]

Yea ods again.
Well given the OP, the OP can't exist either.

 

[PeterDona]

I think the problem here is two fold. Most Christians opposed to evolution do not realize that the theory of evolution is partly true.

Yes, and, may I add, much of the research conducted in the framework of evolution is genuine. And it takes a brilliant mind to transfer the results into the creationist framework.

Example: we see that mutations in skin color are helpful for some rats or mice when transferring to habitats with different background colors. Then I heard one suggest that God did create a limited mutation to be useful for animals for adaption. Now that is what I would say is a brilliant transfer of knowledge into the creationist framework, because it also will induce some lines of research to those catching the ingenuity of the idea.

 

[Anguspure]

There is a problem here. He doesn't define a starting point for life. The only probabilities he gives are for a large protein (1/10 ^ 113) and the 25000 enzymes in the human body (1/10 ^ 2 825 000).
Neither of these are the probability of life from non-life. We need to define what the first life is to be able to say anything about it chance of arising naturalistically. Is it RNA or peptides? Unfortunately science hasn't yet proposed a mechanism for life arising for us to apply statistics to and be able to say whether it was likely or unlikely. To use a deck of cards analogy, we are trying to calculate the probability of a hand of an unknown number of cards from a deck of unknown size.

This is because the number of cards needing to be stacked in order to bring just one functional protein is quite large enough in order to show the point. Clearly life as a bare minimum is a self repairing, self replicating, self correcting energy collection machine, which is an exhibit of functional coherence that is many levels above that of a protein.

 

[Anguspure]

Yes, and, may I add, much of the research conducted in the framework of evolution is genuine. And it takes a brilliant mind to transfer the results into the creationist framework.

Example: we see that mutations in skin color are helpful for some rats or mice when transferring to habitats with different background colors. Then I heard one suggest that God did create a limited mutation to be useful for animals for adaption. Now that is what I would say is a brilliant transfer of knowledge into the creationist framework, because it also will induce some lines of research to those catching the ingenuity of the idea.

Not really brilliant. Just not fooled by the methodological naturalistic paradigm.

 

[sfs]

This is because the number of cards needing to be stacked in order to bring just one functional protein is quite large enough in order to show the point. Clearly life as a bare minimum is a self repairing, self replicating, self correcting energy collection machine, which is an exhibit of functional coherence that is many levels above that of a protein.

One problem with your argument is that the probability is attached to forming a protein, and forming it by a particular process (random assembly). The probability isn't attached to "being functionally coherent". As a result, whether something is more or less functionally coherent than a protein tells you nothing about how probable it is.

A second problem is that we have no idea what the target domain is. How many different forms of life, or of starting life, are chemically possible? One? 10^50? You can't calculate the probability of life starting unless you know that.

Third, we have no idea how many trials have been possible. We have a good idea of the size of the observable universe, but we don't know how big the entire universe is, or even whether it's finite.

Some probabilities we just can't estimate, and this is one of them.

 

[Everybodyknows]

This is because the number of cards needing to be stacked in order to bring just one functional protein is quite large enough in order to show the point. Clearly life as a bare minimum is a self repairing, self replicating, self correcting energy collection machine, which is an exhibit of functional coherence that is many levels above that of a protein.

To start life the minimum is only self replicating. Self repairing or correcting are unnecessary. Also we simply don't know if it started with protein at all or some other chemistry. There aren't any known self replicating proteins, DNA is not self replicating on its own, it needs an array of biochemical machinery to support the copying process. RNA world is a hypothesis with many holes to fill. So until someone can postulate the exact nature of the first self replicator, talking about probability is just vague guesswork.

 

[Episaw]

Number of planets in the universe 1/10 ^ 50

Odd's of evolution happenning. 1/10 ^ 2 825 000

I pointed this out

Number of planets in the universe 1/10 ^ 50

Odd's of evolution happenning. 1/10 ^ 2 825 000

I pointed this out to an atheist and quoted a mathematician who had a Ph.D and his reply was "What does he know. He is only a mathematician." Doh!

 

[The Barbarian]

Number of planets in the universe 1/10 ^ 50

Odd's of evolution happenning. 1/10 ^ 2 825 000

Since evolution, even the evolution of new species, is directly observed, the probability of evolution is 1.0.

You've confused the origin of life with evolution. Two different things. However, God is not neutral in this argument. He says that the world He created brought life forth from the earth.

So, for anyone who believes God, that settles it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Do you agree that low probability events do happen or not?

Sure they do. Take a deck of cards, shuffle it, and deal them out one at a time, noting the order. The likelihood of that result will be 1/52! or very roughly 1 divided by 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

And yet you got it the first time. And if you do it again, you'll get an equally unlikely result. And given the genes of your great,great,great grandparents, the likelihood of you is even less.

So the "probability argument" presented here, "proves" that poker games and humans are impossible.

Maybe there's something wrong there...

 

[chilehed]

That guy hasn't the slightest clue what the Second Law actually says, much less what it actually means.

Here, you have the floor ..

At 2:00 he says that the Second Law “states that all closed physical systems (such as the Earth) tend toward a state of maximum disorder”. This is absolutely false; in fact, the Law states that “in every real thermodynamic event, the total change in thermodynamic entropy is greater than or equal to zero.”

He spends the rest of the video handwaving about things like dice and airplane scrapyards in tornadoes, but his problem is that in order to show a violation of the Law you can’t just wave your hands around: you have to do the math that shows that the process in question would result in a negative change in total thermodynamic entropy. The fact that he just waves his hands around proves that he either can’t do the math or doesn’t know that he needs to, which means he has no clue as to what the Law says.

In fact, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that involves a violation of the Second Law. If you think there is, then tell us what step in the process violates the law and show us the math. Cosmic ray hits DNA and alters a base? - not a violation. Altered base results in a different protein? - not a violation. Different protein results in the organism having an advantage in the environment it lives in? - not a violation. Its offspring inherits the trait? - not a violation. Over time there are more of the new strain than the old one? - not a violation. Over time the accumulated changes in the genome result in the new strain being unable to mate with the old strain? - not a violation.

If no single event violates the law, then the entire process doesn’t either. And, for the record, it's a pretty poor mathematician who wastes all of that breath, and never does any math!!

 

[HenryM]

I think it is best to leave the emotions out of the equation

Like love, which constitutes the core of our two most important commandments? Do you think we are commanded to love, but for those who get to the other side it's all just hard cold facts and, maybe, math?

 

[HenryM]

Number of planets in the universe 1/10 ^ 50

Odd's of evolution happenning. 1/10 ^ 2 825 000

It's good that mathematicians are disproving false narative, maybe it's time for detectives to reveal evolutionists as deliberate liars.