PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Math Proof of Creation
       Evolution or Creation: The FINAL Argument

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
submitmj

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution / Creation: The Final Argument & Proof.

Evolution is possible only within a given species. For example, the navel orange evolved from seeded oranges, not from apples. The laws of probablity preclude the possibility of haphazard evolution between species. A fish cannot evolve into a bird; a monkey can never evolve into a human.

In this computer age, we have mathematical laws that tell us whether a certain event is probable or not. If we throw five numbered cubes up in the air and let them fall into a guided straight line, the probability laws tell us the number of possible combinations we can get: 1x2x3x4x5=120 combinations. Thus, the probability of obtaining any combination is 1 in 120, or 1/120, or 0.0086. This probability diminishes fast when we increase the number of cubes. If we increase them by one, the number of combinations becomes 1x2x3x4x5x6=720, and the probability of getting any combination diminishes to 1/720, 0.0014. Mathematicians, who are very exacting scientists, have agreed that the probability diminishes to "Zero" when we increase the number of cubes to 84. If we work with 84 cubes, the probability diminishes to 209x10 (raised to the power of) -50, or
0.0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 209

(for some reason this forum keeps deleting all the zeros after the decimal. Hopefully, if I space them it will show. Anyhow, there are fifty "zero's" after the decimal if it doesn't show up)


Probability Laws Preclude Darwin's Evolution

Darwin's famous statement that "life began as a `simple' cell" is laughable. As recently as 50 years ago, Wells, Huxley, and Wells wrote in their classic textbook that "nothing can be seen inside the nucleus but clear fluid." We know now that the cell, is an extremely complex unit, with billions of nucleotides in the gene material inside the nucleus, and millions of biochemical reactions. The probability laws tell us that the probability of the haphazard creation of the exacting sequences of nucleotides into DNA is Zero, many times over. We are not talking about 84 nucleotides (cubes); we are talking about billions of nucleotides that must be arranged in a specific sequence.

Some evolutionists have stated that the human gene and the monkey's gene are 90% similar. However, even if the similarity was 99%, we are still talking about 300,000,000 nucleotides that must be haphazardly re-arranged to change the monkey into a human. The probability laws preclude this as an utter impossibility. The human gene contains 30,000,000,000 nucleotides; 1% of that is 300,000,000.

A fitting quote here is that of Professor Edwin Conklin; he stated:  
The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing factory.

We learn from the Quran that evolution is a divinely designed fact:

Life began in water: "From water we initiated all living things." (21:30, 24:45)
Humans not descendants of monkeys: "He started the creation of man from mud." (32:7)
Man created from "aged" mud: "I am creating the human being from aged' clay." (15:28)

This article was written by Dr. Rashad Khalifa. I'm a simply sharing it with you.  There is only one GOD. Worship Him alone.

If you want to witness a miracle with physical evidence to prove it.  Follow the link below.
Witness a Miracle

(Edited by submitmj 10/13/2007 at 5:13 PM).

(Edited by submitmj 10/13/2007 at 5:15 PM).

(Edited by submitmj 10/13/2007 at 5:21 PM).

(Edited by submitmj 10/13/2007 at 8:48 PM).
 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 3:27 PM on October 13, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hurray for copy-pasted sludge!



...What? You thought your lack of effort deserves anything more than this?

  1.  Evolutionists the world over are, and always have been, unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance. The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution. The novel aspect that Darwin proposed is natural selection. Selection is the very opposite of chance.

     Selection of randomly introduced variation is known to be able to produce complex formations, including functional circuits (Davidson 1997; Thompson 1996) and robots (Lipson and Pollack 2000). Creationists have never proposed a reason to explain why the same processes would not produce the same results in nature.

  2. The principles by which evolution works, including random variation and recombination and natural selection, have proven successful and useful for designing new drugs (Coghlan 1998), for designing better enzymes for detergents (Pollack 2000), and, as genetic algorithms, for many other applications.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 7:34 PM on October 13, 2007 | IP
submitmj

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let me clarify.

My initial post is referring to the statistical  probability of the very first creation of life resulting from random bubbling of the primordial soup, NOT what happened afterwards (evolution).  I agree that Evolution is a fact within species. The Navel Orange is a modern day proof of this.  But an orange never evolved from an apple and visa-versa.

Statistically, if the math don't fit, you must acquit. (see initial post)

My comment on the Robot analogy is;  Robots are not alive.
 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 8:46 PM on October 13, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So many mistakes!  Obviously submitmj doesn't understand evolution or biology.

Evolution is possible only within a given species.

Since we've seen new species evolve, both in the lab and in the wild, right off the bat you are wrong.

The laws of probablity preclude the possibility of haphazard evolution between species.

Please explain this gibberish!  Evolution isn't haphazard, yet new species do arise.

A fish cannot evolve into a bird;

No but a fish HAS evolved into an amphibian, an amphibian has evolved into a reptile, a reptile has evolved into a bird and it also has evovled into a mammal.  

a monkey can never evolve into a
human.


Already happened, it is a virtual fact that man did evolve from a more primitive ancestor.  It's as certain as anything in science.

Evolution  claims all life came from a simple single cell.

Another glaring mistake, evolution makes no such claim, all present day life evolved from a population of primitive organisms, not one cell.

However, was not aware that the simple cell was not so simple after all. He did not know about the blueprint of life,  DNA. Which is the set of instructions cells use to grow, repair and differentiate into complex living
organisms.


How do you know the first life had DNA?  Many biochemists think DNA evolved and was not present in the first life forms.  Since you base your claim partially on DNA, and you don't even know if the first life HAD DNA, we can conclude that all your probability claims are worthless.

Darwin's famous statement that "life began as a `simple' cell" is laughable.

Well, Darwin is 150 years out of date, he didn't even know about DNA.  Why did you even mention him here?

We know now that the cell, is an extremely complex unit, with billions of nucleotides in the gene material inside the nucleus, and millions of biochemical reactions.

Modern cells, not the life that arose 3.8 billion years ago...

The probability laws tell us that the probability of the haphazard creation of the exacting sequences of nucleotides into DNA is Zero, many times over.

How the first life forms arose isn't haphazard, and since you don't know what made up the first life, you have no idea what the probability really is.  Your claims are comletely worthless.

Some evolutionists have stated that the human gene and the monkey's gene are 90% similar. However, even if the similarity was 99%, we are still talking about 300,000,000 nucleotides that must be haphazardly re-arranged to change the monkey into a human. The probability laws preclude this as an utter impossibility. The human gene contains 30,000,000,000 nucleotides; 1% of that is 300,000,000.

ONce again, your failure to understand evolution completely invalidates your claim.
Here's what the real experts say about human evolution, from here:
Chimp/Human

"The comparisons of the two genomes, published today in the journal Nature by 67 researchers in the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, provide unambiguous confirmation of the common and recent evolutionary origin of humans and chimpanzees, as first predicted by Charles Darwin in 1871."

It's confirmed, humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor.

We learn from the Quran...

Quran, another book of myths, completely usless when it comes to science.

Stop relying on old sheep herder myths that are over 2000 years out of date!  Do some real research and get with 21st centruy science!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:31 PM on October 13, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We know now that the cell, is an extremely complex unit, with billions of nucleotides in the gene material inside the nucleus, and millions of biochemical reactions.

Modern cells, not the life that arose 3.8 billion years ago...


I should add that prokaryotic cells don't even have a nucleus.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:25 PM on October 13, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My initial post is referring to the statistical  probability of the very first creation of life resulting from random bubbling of the primordial soup,

Another mistake, chemistry isn't random either, guess that kills your claim.

I agree that Evolution is a fact within species.

But we've observed evolution of NEW species, both in the lab, in the wild and in the fossil record, so your claim that we haven't seen new species evolve is totally incorrect.

But an orange never evolved from an apple and visa-versa.

And how does this falsify evolution?

Statistically, if the math don't fit, you must acquit. (see initial post)

And as you've been shown, your math ain't worth shit...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:44 PM on October 13, 2007 | IP
submitmj

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1) I have shown the mathematical improbability of life originating from the primordial soup.  In any other scientific study, results with a probability value such as this would have been rejected instantly. Thus, a new hypothesis would need to be formulated. Objectivity is a key requirement in scientific observation to prevent bias. If you choose to reject mathematics (see original posting), that is your decision.

2) In response to your comment on religious scriptures... The Quran is NOT a book of myths. None of the scriptures (Bible & Quran) are myths. There is built-in incontrovertible physical evidence that proves Divine authorship of all scriptures for those who wish to see.  Yes. Physical evidence that most people are unaware of. Nevertheless, it is there for anybody to verify for themselves.

Peace
Click here to verify the evidence of Divine authorship for yourself
 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 10:59 PM on October 13, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have shown the mathematical improbability of life originating from the primordial soup.

No you haven't.  Your claim procedes from a false assumption, that the laws of chemistry are random, they are not.  Also, your claim that the first life was as complex as modern cells is wrong.  Aslo your claim that the first life had DNA is wrong.  You have not addressed these flaws in your claim, so you've made false claims, and we've shown you how they are false.  You can ignore the falsifications of your claims, but that doesn't change the fact that your claims have been proven wrong.

The Quran is NOT a book of myths. None of the scriptures (Bible & Quran) are myths.

Yes they are.

There is built-in incontrovertible physical evidence that proves Divine authorship of all scriptures for those who wish to see.

Show us this evidence or retract your claim.

Yes. Physical evidence that most people are unaware of. Nevertheless, it is there for anybody to verify for themselves.

If there is physical evidence, scientists could examine it, please show us the scientific studies that support your claim or retract it.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:26 PM on October 13, 2007 | IP
submitmj

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


I have already posted the link at the end of my last posting, but here it is again. The proof of Divine authorship can be found here.

click here

 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 11:59 PM on October 13, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The proof of Divine authorship can be found here.

You've got to be kidding!  You call nonsensical tricks with numbers "proof of divine authorship"?!?!?!  Don't be ridiculous!  Show us hard, empirical evidence that can be examined, tested, analysed or don't bother.

Are you going to respond to all the mistakes you made in your claims about abiogenesis and evolution, or are you just going to ignore them?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:05 AM on October 14, 2007 | IP
submitmj

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It took me a long long time on Microsoft excel to  confirm and verify all the data is factual.  Hence, your response within six minutes clearly demonstrates that you have rejected it without verifying it. Again, that is your decision to disregard the evidence. Nevertheless, the data is there for anybody who wishes to verify the existence of GOD and it proves that there is only one GOD and to worship Him alone.  


 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 12:24 AM on October 14, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It took me a long long time on Microsoft excel to  confirm and verify all the data is factual.

You didn't present ANY evidence at all, the site you linked to had conclusions drawn from numbers of verses in a book of mythology.  This is not evidence.

Hence, your response within six minutes clearly demonstrates that you have rejected it without verifying it.

A quick perusal of your site showed no evidence at all.

Nevertheless, the data is there for anybody who wishes to verify the existence of GOD and it proves that there is only one GOD and to worship Him alone.

It proves nothing.

Now, are you going to respond to the many mistakes you made in discussing abiogenesis and evolution?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:00 AM on October 14, 2007 | IP
submitmj

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I do not retract.  The statistical improbability that all life originated from a single cell in the primordial soup is clear. I trust the math.

You believe what you believe. I believe what I believe. You will never believe what I believe and I will never believe what you believe.
 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 01:26 AM on October 14, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I do not retract.  The statistical improbability that all life originated from a single cell in the primordial soup is clear. I trust the math.

You do not have math in your corner because you make mistakes.  And when these mistakes are pointed out to you, you refuse to aknowledge them.  One, the laws of chemistry that gave rise to life are not haphazard or random, as you claimed.  Two, it wasn't a modern cell that arose over 3.8 billion years ago, it was a much more primitive ancestor.  Three, a population of these primitive life forms arose, not just a single cell.  Four, these primitive lifeforms weren't based on DNA but on a precursor of DNA.    

You believe what you believe. I believe what I believe.

No, I accept what the evidence tells us, you believe in what you believe despite the evidence.  

You will never believe what I believe and I will never believe what you believe.

That's because you don't understand science, chemistry or biology and insist on thinking myths somehow have equal footing with real facts.
Are you ever going to address the mistakes you made in your claims about evolution?

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:08 AM on October 14, 2007 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As for the miracle of the Quran - there is a similar claim about the 'Bible Code'.  That there are amazing patterns embedded within the Bible, or that certain words appear in some amazing numerical pattern.  

This has all been proven to be of no consequence.  Dr. Mark Perakh (a retired professsor of Physics) demonstrates this in his book 'Unintelligent Design'.  

Also see here:

null

Your mathematical proof is really no proof at all.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:24 PM on October 16, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

THe problem with evolutionests is that they state that all life was just one big accident.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:50 AM on October 17, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

THe problem with evolutionests is that they state that all life was just one big accident.


You know by now that evolutionary theory says no such thing.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:40 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wat, life wasnt an accident, a mistake?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 3:45 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, who is telling that it was, and why do you believe them?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:51 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if life isn't a mistake, like evolution claims, then wat is it.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 5:10 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

An emergent property of the physical universe, which could be theistic or not.

Emergent Properties


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:23 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if life isn't a mistake, like evolution claims, then wat is it.

Evolution doesn't claim that life is a mistake.  Given that the age of the earth is about 4.7 billion years old and that that there is evidence that life is more than 3 billion years old, then there is a pretty good chance that life didn't actually occur by chance.  That it occurred because the right conditions were present.

Now, if you want to look at people - are we here by chance?  My answer to that question is, Yes, people are here by chance.  

As Richard Dawkins pointed out, we are descended from the first chordate organisms (having a backbone) that evolved more than 500 million years ago - probably before the Cambrian period.  If Chordates hadn't evolved, then people wouldn't be here.

Secondly - if that asteroid hadn't hit the earth 65 million years ago, most likely dinosaurs would still be rulers of the earth.  Mammals probably wouldn't have evolved as they did, people wouldn't be here.

Thirdly - our primate ancestors were not the best equipped animals for survival.  Life for them was a bit dicey.  

There are other factors too.  So the fact that people are here at all owes a large degree to luck!  


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:49 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is about the 15th time creationest6 has been told evolution doesn't claim life is an accident.  I wonder how many hours it will take him this time to forget and then make the same erroneous claim in another thread.  
Creationest6, do you read the threads.  You've been told that evolution doesn't claim life is an accident, why repeat the same mistakes?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:25 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

oh, so there was plan, life was intentional?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:18 AM on October 18, 2007 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why not?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:33 AM on October 18, 2007 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I wasn't saying that life was intentional, as though someone created it.  All I was saying is that given the right conditions, I think life is inevitable.  For instance, astronomers are finding that planetary formation around other stars appears to be a commonplace process - planets form as a part of steller formation.

So too, I would guess that given the right conditions, such as temperature, conducive atmosphere, water, etc, life probably also has a good chance of establishing a foothold.  We don't have any proof of that yet.  But that would seem to be a reasonable assumption.

Now whether life leads to advanced intelligence, as it did with homo sapiens, that is entirely open to speculation.  Although I  suspect advanced intelligence to be a rather rare case, I don't think we're the sole intelligent beings in the universe.  And by intelligent beings, I'm not referring to God.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:54 PM on October 18, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

oh, so there was plan, life was
intentional?


No, life wasn't a plan, it wasn't intentional.  It emerged due to natural processes.  An accident or an intentional plan aren't the only 2 choices.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:29 PM on October 18, 2007 | IP
The_Wizard

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Evolution is possible only within a given species. For example, the navel orange evolved from seeded oranges, not from apples. The laws of probablity preclude the possibility of haphazard evolution between species. A fish cannot evolve into a bird; a monkey can never evolve into a human."

Actually what you said is a contradictory. Lemons, limes, oranges, grapefruit and tangerines are all citrus fruits. You would never confuse any one for the other... but all have a citrus ancestor... a first citrus fruit bearing tree. According to you, an oranges will produce variations of an orange... but is a tangerine a variation of and orange or a lime. Both are the same size and shape and citrus. Grapefruit are more like oranges in size and shape, so which one came from which. How many variations of the orange can be produced before the final product is no longer an orange and yet still be citrus.

Let's takes this a different way... How many times does a fruit bearing tree evolve before it produces two different types of fruit... like apples and oranges or even a pineapple. While yes, a human will never give birth to a cow... it is obvious that people can produce BULL CRAP.

"Evolution is possible only within a given species. For example, the navel orange evolved from seeded oranges evolved from seeded oranges..."

Stop breaking down the sciences in sound bites and look at the big picture. How many variants can a one celled organisms create before it produces a mutated organism that is no longer considers the same as the original or produce a cell colony. How many changes to a cell colony are made before a multi celled organism is produced.

BTW... Navel Oranges are a mutation of seeded oranges not the evolution. Navel Oranges are sterile and can not even produce new navel oranges.

.... but given a million years maybe they will produce an apple.


-------
Never Talkin', Just Keeps Walkin'
Spreadin' His Magic...

The Wizard
 


Posts: 40 | Posted: 12:38 PM on November 14, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.