U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-18-2012, 08:33 AM
 
6,824 posts, read 4,900,495 times
Reputation: 3724

Advertisements

Quote:

Objection #1 - Mathematics Disproves Evolution
--------------------------------------
First for this argument I need to define a term that most of you probably know so bear with me here.

Permutation
Websters New World Dictionary defines it as following.

Permutation
1. a change; alteration; rearrangement.
2. any one of the combinations or changes in position possible within a group. The permutations of 1, 2, and 3 are. 123, 132, 213, 231, 312, 321

The formula for finding permutations is as following.

P = A ^ C
P = Number of Permutations
A = Number of Letters in the Alphabet
C = Number of Characters in a String of Letters
^ = To the Power of

Consider the Following Example:
Genesis 1:1
in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth

translated into Morse code
..-.-.....-....--...-.-...-.--.--.----..-.-..-...--.-..-...........-...-.-.....--.-..-.......-.-.-....

2A(Number of Letters in Alphabet) [. or -] 102C(Number of Characters in a String of Letters)

This seems like an easy string for Evolution to create by random chance over 15 billion years(Which is the excepted time from the big bang) doesn't it?

Let's plug these numbers into our formula.
P = A ^ C
P = 2 ^ 102
P = 5,070,602,400,912,917,605,986,812,821,504

There are 31,536,000 seconds in a year.
At one permutation a second and assuming that a permutation is not repeated it would take 160,787,747,365,325,900,747,932 years to get this particular combination.

As a matter of fact, it would take 10,719,183,157,688 times longer than the universe has supposedly been in existence just to say "in the beginning god created the heavens in the earth" in Morse code by random chance.

Now let us consider a moderately sized molecule in the human body. The Hemoglobin Molecule.

It is made up from an alphabet made up of 19 amino acids and has a string length of 574 characters

19A 574C
P = 19 ^ 574
P = 1 * 10^734
That is a 1 followed by 734 Zeros
There is only 1*10^80 atoms in the entire universe. Which also had to arise by total random chance.

Scientists consider anything with a chance of greater than 1*10^50 to be impossible. Is it possible than a human eye arose by chance much less the human body?
It requires greater faith to believe evolution than that we are all accountable to a Creator who resides outside of the finite universe outside what we now know through Einstein to be outside the Physical Dimension of time. The Scriptures call it eternity.

Isaiah 57:15
For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-18-2012, 02:13 PM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,938 posts, read 9,707,173 times
Reputation: 2411
Quote:
Originally Posted by sskkc View Post
Search "Creation scientists" and ICR (Institute for Creation Research) if you are sincerely seeking knowledge.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahah ahahahahahahahaha!!!! Now THAT was funny!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2012, 02:24 PM
 
35,053 posts, read 9,073,081 times
Reputation: 4826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikelee81 View Post
It requires greater faith to believe evolution than that we are all accountable to a Creator who resides outside of the finite universe outside what we now know through Einstein to be outside the Physical Dimension of time. The Scriptures call it eternity.

Isaiah 57:15
For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.
Sorry, your bucketful of mathematic fails because it begins with the false premise that it is all either done by a god (name your own) pr it is completer random. It leaves the predictable processes of material physics out of the equation.

Like all the arguments faked up to prove a god or disprove what they call dayhan sayauth 'evilooshun', it begins with an invalid assumption. Thus even a logical argument based on that is going to be unsound. And we rarely get a logical one.

Look, fellow humans, I'm not saying there cannot be a god or that science knows all the answers. There could be something creative behind Life the universe and everything, but please don't abuse the minds you were given with these fake argument designed to prove what is essentially a matter of faith (the existence of a god - name your own) or disprove what is a matter of evidence (the development over a long time of life-forms though the mechanism of natural selection).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2012, 02:48 PM
 
Location: Maine
15,186 posts, read 19,822,710 times
Reputation: 17445
Once upon a time two men were standing in front of the Mona Lisa, admiring the painting.

The first man said, "What a wonderful painting that Da Vinci created."

The other man scoffed and said, "Idiot! All evidence proves that the Mona Lisa was made by paint and brushes."

And thus began the fight.

The sad part is that both men were correct but only seeing half the explanation. But because both were so intent on proving the other wrong, neither ever realized his opponent had a lot to teach him.

This argument reminds me of that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2012, 03:59 PM
 
6,824 posts, read 4,900,495 times
Reputation: 3724
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Sorry, your bucketful of mathematic fails because it begins with the false premise that it is all either done by a god (name your own) pr it is completer random. It leaves the predictable processes of material physics out of the equation.
the phrase coded in morse code could have had nothing to do with God, but the mathematical probability remains the same in permutations - absurd and irrational.

So the mathematical equation is valid. All that was done was take a phrase, translated it into morse code, and calculate the permuations of it. A two digital sequence is NOTHING compared to our 20_ Amino Acid sequence. << and that's the point.

And that is observed.

No one evolved. It is a good story for fantasy comic books but not for Science text books. It requires great faith to believe in something that is impossible mathematically by scientific definition.

natural selection selects from an already existing gene pool. It does not create a new one. Mutations result in a loss of information. Most mutations drive animals to extinction. Natural Selection helps the peppered moth turn from black to white. It does not make a man from an ape or a bird from a dinosaur.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2012, 09:23 PM
 
35,053 posts, read 9,073,081 times
Reputation: 4826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
Once upon a time two men were standing in front of the Mona Lisa, admiring the painting.

The first man said, "What a wonderful painting that Da Vinci created."

The other man scoffed and said, "Idiot! All evidence proves that the Mona Lisa was made by paint and brushes."

And thus began the fight.

The sad part is that both men were correct but only seeing half the explanation. But because both were so intent on proving the other wrong, neither ever realized his opponent had a lot to teach him.

This argument reminds me of that.
That's a good story. It shows the meaning of a false analogy. The person who saw only the paint and brushes and didn't mention that it must have had a painter was overlooking the centuries of evidence that all paintings had to have a painter.

The story doesn't apply though because the world and animals is not a painting. The person who looks at a volcano exploding and said that a powerful invisibe being must have made it was overlooking the strong evidence that we now have that nobody needs to make it. It can be made by natural and understood forces.

Succinctly, seeing nature and the known mechanisms that made and work it as a painting or machine is reading far too much into it. The Watchmaker or dollar bill balancing on its edge or painting analogies are based on overlooking the nature of physical laws.

Now before it is said, there is a case for arguing that 'somebody' had to make those laws in the first place, and 'somebody' had to make the complex DNA...well, RNA...well make that polypeptides or whatever...well, at least put the biochemicals into space so that...well, ok, made matter in the first place...well then, then the will to begin matter forming.

It's not a case I feel compelled to accept more than possibly, possibly not. But to dismiss all the evidence that (once we have matter) physical processes are quite capable of being left alone to produce its own complexities (because in fact, information can be added, and lost, too) is just as much denial of evidence as the person who wouldn't accept that the Mona Lisa was in fact the product of a painter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2012, 10:14 PM
 
6,824 posts, read 4,900,495 times
Reputation: 3724
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
But to dismiss all the evidence that (once we have matter) physical processes are quite capable of being left alone to produce its own complexities (because in fact, information can be added, and lost, too) is just as much denial of evidence as the person who wouldn't accept that the Mona Lisa was in fact the product of a painter.
Not is energy required for anabolic reactions, a source of information is required to harness that energy into useful work. Energy in itself if destroys. To harness that energy, the most common and simplistic process we observe in nature is photosynthesis. Simply stated, this is NOT a simple complex of biochemical pathway. It is like everything else we observe, is dependent upon Water and Carbon Dioxide. It is an interdependent cycle. One that had to come about relatively quickly.

We don't observe information being added. We observe matter changing to various phases or lost in reaction as heat. It's a basic principle of Science that matter is not created nor destroyed only transferred. An anabolic process not only requires energy, but a system to harness that energy or it is useless. Everything thing is winding down, not winding up. Eventually everything ends in heat death in ambient temperature assuming linearity. Every time we see a cold glass of water with condensation is the evidence.

What we observe is that it all seems to have been wound up and is winding down. Like winding up a clock.

It's not the other way around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2012, 08:13 AM
 
35,053 posts, read 9,073,081 times
Reputation: 4826
Quite so. growth, evolution, construction, accretion and increase of information (we observe that all the time, chum) in a material. energy sense (non - tactile information such as ideas or lager number of spacial relationships of course demand no extra matter or energy) and it has to come from somewhere.

Much of - perhaps all of it - comes from death, erosion, dissolution and eradication. If not it can come from outside. The earth in not a closed system, not is the solar system a closed system. Perhaps not even the universe is a closed system.

If it is, it is winding down and may perhaps become stagnant and pulling together for another big bang. Or perhaps somewhere new atoms are being made as old ones vanish. Who knows?

It is interesting speculation but can have no bearing on whether evolution or creationism best accords with the facts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2012, 08:52 AM
 
6,824 posts, read 4,900,495 times
Reputation: 3724
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Quite so. growth, evolution, construction, accretion and increase of information (we observe that all the time, chum) in a material. energy sense (non - tactile information such as ideas or lager number of spacial relationships of course demand no extra matter or energy) and it has to come from somewhere.

Much of - perhaps all of it - comes from death, erosion, dissolution and eradication. If not it can come from outside. The earth in not a closed system, not is the solar system a closed system. Perhaps not even the universe is a closed system.
Your conclusion is even at odds with the majority of scientists - including the evolutionists. The Universe is Finite. Thus by definition it is a closed system.

Here's a good presentation using logic for anyone looking for truth.


Evidence of God: A Finite Universe - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2012, 12:17 AM
 
35,053 posts, read 9,073,081 times
Reputation: 4826
Nobody really knows whether the universe is finite or infinite.

If it is finite - what beyond it? Finite does not mean 'closed from what's outside'.

Even if it was 'closed', it contains many systems open to it which would therefore not become moribund through entropy (which is actually what this argument is designed to prove) and essentially, we could (cosmically speaking) go on for a long, long time, if not without any feasible end in sight.

I find it comical that the theists who deny every damn' thing science says, or even proves, if it conflicts with their Faith, can hold up 'Scientific evidence' as gospel truth if it apparently does - even if it isn't actually what science says.

I will not mislead you - I have been disinclined to watch that video as I have better things (and less annoying) to do with my time than to sit through yet another ill-informed and mendacious presentation of science - mangling by Creationists trying to prove God's existence - usually by trying to discredit 'evilution'.

Do feel free to summarize the points or argument made in that video yourself rather than expecting me to do it for you, and I'll give you my response.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top