Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

True that.

They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Can you show the math you base your God-based Creation hypothesis is correct? If you cannot, then we will have to assume that it is only on faith, again, that you base your entire argument that God did it.

In thinking further--this is a very interesting postulation--because in order for it to be true a person would need a perfect knowledge of the entire internet. Obviously lacking the substance of that knowledge we are left with a speculative emotional outburst. But setting that aside, do I get some form of an honorary degree for achieving this status?

Well first of all the thread is about whether evolution is a myth, and evolution states that it is based wholly on science. But science cannot prove evolution as a starting point, so it fails.

To entertain the question ... Some things are proven by deduction and positive evidence. Mathematical calculations make it quite clear that the first existence needs to be an uncaused first cause and a miraculous beginning. So yes I have faith in what the evidence shows whereas in your position you have doubt in what the evidence shows. In this case there is far more scientific evidence for faith than doubt.

So we can assume that you probably have not looked into the assumptions and the math based on those assumptions.

Was hoping you would be able to defend your position with a real mathematical proof.

Here is a passage from philosopher Antony Flew’s book “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind” that illustrates the vast amount of faith required to believe life arose by chance.

“ I was particularly impressed by Gerry Schroeder’s point-by-point refutation of what I call the “monkey theorem”. This idea, which has been presented in a number of forms and variations, defends the possibility of life arising by chance using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys banging away on computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a Shakespearean sonnet.

Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!) the monkey’s produced 50 typed pages---but not a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the shortest word in the English language is one letter (A or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has 30 characters (the 26 letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one letter word is 30 x 30 x 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of getting a one letter word is one chance out of 27,000.

Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. What’s the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?” he asked? He continued:
All the sonnets are the same length. They’re by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening for, “Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer’s Day?” I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in that sonnet. What’s the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in the exact sequence as in “Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer’s Day”? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times----or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10, 10 to the 690th.
[Now] the number of particles in the universe---not grains of sand, I’m talking about protons, electrons and neutrons---is 10 to the 80th. Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you’d be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th.
If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips---forget monkeys---each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 488 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second [producing] random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th times larger. Yet the world just things monkeys can do it every time.”

And the DNA coding of even a simple protein is far, far more complex than a mere Shakespearian sonnet.

Experiment just suggests that God is probably not six monkeys.

Far smarter people than you or I have shown that the mathematical calculations are not possible to prove the negative--but the same mathematical conundrum would support the positive. That's not too hard to deduce.

and that evolution is a flawed system. I could could agree with both points.

No. The experiment shows that the neo-Darwinian claim that time and chance can create life or even alter a life form is unlikely to be true.

Hmmmm. A clever twist on argumentum ad verecundiam, I'll grant you that.

A good summary of the problem: "A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor)... It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. 'There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.' Design is a search problem and this is what kills Darwinism, let me quote Stephen Meyer: 'Natural Selection selects for the functional advantage, but the mutational search has to find it within the combinatorial sequence that's being explored...natural selection doesn't work until you have something functional to be selected.' Ultimately, Darwinians are unable to respond to the high level of randomness required to create a certain protein before natural selection could begin to choose it.

He didn't make an argument from authority dunce. He merely pointed out that the math doesn't support Neo-Darwinism's claims.

Your conclusion is pretty much out over your skis.

Look again.

Darwin lost his skis and crashed on the slippery slope

You've not yet proved that evolution is a flawed system .

Darwinian evolution can explain the selection of the mutation but it cannot explain the arrival of the mutation.

Don't be confusing yourself with Darwin.