Law of probabilities Refute Evolution

[Spiritual Warrior]

With all due respect, Evolutionists have been unable to answer the question of how life spontaneousle arose from dead mater. Sir Fred Hoyle, professor of astronomy at Cambridge University, said of evolution, "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

This famous statician puts it in perspective for us: "The Likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one out of 10 to the 40,000th power...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primevil soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence" (Evolution from Space)

And even though Michael J. Behe is a supporter of evolution, he freely admits that Darwin's theory of evolution is improbable, "I believe that Darwin's mechanism for evolution doesn't explain much of what is seen under a microscope. Cells are simply to complex to have evolved randomly. Intelligence was required to produce them."

Even Stephen Hawking, who is considered to be the best-known scientist since Albert Einstein, acknowledges, "The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specificlly designed for us." He goes on to say, "If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form the heavier elements or the universe would colapse before life could develop and so on." (Austin-American statesman, Oct. 19, 1997) In A Brief History of Time Hawking wrote, It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except in the act of God who intended to create beings like us." John Wheeler, Princeton University professor of physics, agrees: "Slight variations in physical laws such as gravity and electromagnetism would make life impossible... the necessity to produce life lies at the center of the universe's whole machinery and design" (Reader's Digest, Sept. 1986)

The point is that Man is the pinnacle of God's earthly creation. He is not just a mere part of the evolutionary process having to yield to the rights of animals.

Jesus said that mankind is "much better" than birds and sheep (Matthew 12:12). He is to subdue the earth and bring its vast resources into submission. All were created for him by the infinite genius and loving hand of God Almighty. Science simply confirms how great God is. And we haven't even scratched the surface. WOW!

Edited August 23, 2004 by Spiritual Warrior

[Bread_of_Life]

Firstly, these quotes do not form an argument - but rather a series of (sometimes unconnected) statements without evidential backing.

Secondly, the statement that:

Evolutionists have been unable to answer the question of how life spontaneousle arose from dead mater

is wrong. Evolutionists do not have to explain this at all - since evolution presupposes the existence of life - and is a theory to explain life's divergence into species, specialisation into ways of life, and adaptivity.

Evolution is not the same subject as abiogenesis.

Thirdly, the statement:

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

attributed to Fred Hoyle, did not refer to abiogenesis at all, but rather to the theory of evolution by natural selection, therefore it does not belong in a paragraph about abiogenesis. As it happens, Hoyle was also incorrect, as he believed (wrongly) that evolution was a random saltationist process, which it is not.

This famous statician puts it in perspective for us: "The Likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one out of 10 to the 40,000th power...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primevil soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence"

This is just a statement with a big number in it, it gives no backing at all. Furthermore, it still has nothing to do with evolution or Darwin's theory, since Darwin's theory describes the behaviour and adaption of life after its generation.

"I believe that Darwin's mechanism for evolution doesn't explain much of what is seen under a microscope. Cells are simply to complex to have evolved randomly. Intelligence was required to produce them."

THis statement has to do with the process of evolution - that is, mutation and selection. It does not dispute the fact of the occurence of evolution - that is, common ancestry. Whether or not the statement is correct, and the mechanism for evolution really is insufficient, that does not mean that evolution did not happen, it means that we do not understand the mechanism by which it happened.

Even Stephen Hawking, who is considered to be the best-known scientist since Albert Einstein, acknowledges, "The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specificlly designed for us." He goes on to say, "If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form the heavier elements or the universe would colapse before life could develop and so on."

WHilst I respect Hawking as a scientist, I don't think much of him as a philosopher - I think he has made basic philosophical errors in assessing whether the universe is teleologically based on the goal of life. However, this has again nothing to do with whether or not evolution occured. If you want an argument about so called "fine-tuning" philosophy, then start a thread on it.

The point is that Man is the pinnacle of God's earthly creation. He is not just a mere part of the evolutionary process having to yield to the rights of animals.

The theory of evolution is not a moral theory, and therefore it does not state whether humans ought or ought not yield to the rights of animals, or whether there are rights of animals, or what rights are etc etc etc etc.

So again, this statement has nothing at all to do with Darwin's theory of evolution.

[Spiritual Warrior]

That's very interesting.

Did you know that Jesus Christ died on a cross for your sins. Isn't that wonderful.

That even though we don't deserve it, (that is grace which means "unmerited favor") we still can inherit eternal life if we just call upon the name of the Lord and believe. Make Psalm 51 your prayer Get out your bible and read it and obey what you read. And get into a good Bible based Church.

"The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice." - Pro. 12:15

[Bread_of_Life]

Spiritual Warrior,

If you are so clearly uninterested in science that, when I post a detailed reply to you, you simply ignore what I have written and tell me about salvation (a subject that I am already aware of btw), then why on earth create threads and posts about science?

It is rather disheartening to expend time and effort writing a reply back to you only for you to basically ignore what I have written and tell me that Jesus died for my sins. I know that Christians claim that Jesus died for my sins, and I have read Psalm 51 before - but my post was not on that subject, was it?

Therefore if you're really not serious in discussing science in any depth at all, or responding to criticisms of your posts, I really would suggest that you stick with theology and apologetics, lest there comes a time when people like me learn the lesson and simply stop replying, which would be unfortunate...

[Spiritual Warrior]

Jesus related to the woman at the well by discussing something that she knew about: The well and the water: RELATE. Thereby creating an opportunity to witness to her. Jesus didn't need to spend thousand of hours talking about things that really don't matter: the water or the well, did he? No, because He knew what was truly important, salvation.

God bless,

your friend,

S.W.

[Guest CantStopIntelligence]

That's very interesting.

Did you know that Jesus Christ died on a cross for your sins. Isn't that wonderful.

That even though we don't deserve it, (that is grace which means "unmerited favor") we still can inherit eternal life if we just call upon the name of the Lord and believe. Make Psalm 51 your prayer Get out your bible and read it and obey what you read. And get into a good Bible based Church.

"The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice." - Pro. 12:15

That's the funniest reply to a science based thread I've seen in my entire life.

Oh and your quote at the bottom of your post. Dont be a hipicrit and follow it aswell.

[UndecidedFrog]

Dear Scientific Atheist,

This is just my opnion. You need not accept it if you don't like it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

I have been following this thread. Thank you for your patience and clear explanation of what is and what is not evolution. I agree completely with your explanation of it. It reminded me of high school biology class. There is so much uneeded confusion between abiogenesis and evolution. Many do not know there is a difference.

Do not get discouraged by the non-sequitor responses you receive from your critics. Oftentimes, it has been my experience that people do not want to address that which might make them rethink their worldview. We must allow people to save face and escape.

Best regards,

UndecidedFrog

[J.C.]

How did the "woodpecker" evolve?

[georgesbluegirl]

Presumably, birds wanted bugs.

[Bread_of_Life]

JC

I don't know, I've never studied woodpeckers. Have you?

georgesbluegirl

Presumably, birds wanted bugs.

That's almost certainly not the answer - mutations do not occur because animals want them to, they occur at random.

Those random mutations are then "selected" on the basis of whether an animal is better with or without them - whether an animal needs, or uses them to its advantage.

Neither step in the process (the random mutation, or the non-random selection) has to do with an animal "wanting" something to happen.