The Evolution Fraud

[ChemEngineer]

The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God


Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

 

[Mac1958]

No one really knows where we came from, or how we got here.

Anyone who thinks they have The Answer is delusional and egotistical.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God


Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

Science is based on Theory until it is PROVEN factual. We keep seeing the dinosaur evolve from a slow moving reptile to a faster sauropod. Until we can figure out how to travel back in time, we will always have a theory of evolution, no facts.

 

[Erinwltr]

No one really knows where we came from, or how we got here.

Anyone who thinks they have The Answer is delusional and egotistical.

Reminds me of a lyric in a Kansas song, Carry on Wayward Son.
"And if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God


Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

Odds are against winning Mega Millions....people still win.

 

[ReinyDays]

1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

That's nuts ... 1 in 10 to the 150th power isn't anywhere close to zero ... for a chemical engineer, you sure have an odd sense of what is small ... yeesh ... and your artistic talents come in short ... you're asking the wrong question ...

It doesn't matter how small the odds are of an enzyme forming in any given Planck Time Unit (PTU) ... given enough PTU's, the formation of this enzyme at least once approaches certainty, and we certainly have enough PTU's ... and thus our basic assumption, once is enough ... for example: the odds of rolling a four with a die is 1 in 6 ... but what are the odds of rolling a four at least once in a billion rolls ... not certainty, but close ... or a better example, a kilogram of methane in a vessel at 1 atmosphere pressure and 100ºC, what are the odds of absolutely NO ethane forming? ...

Now do your mathing again, this time instead of a 34,350 amino acid protein, only use the 21 enzymes needed to form this protein, the same enzymes to form any protein ... you're a chemical engineer, you should know this ...

 

[alang1216]

The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God


Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

You're correct the, odds of a protein just happening by chance is remote. What you are ignoring is evolution and natural selection. Imagine a single chimp on a typewriter (do those even exist anymore?) hitting keys. The odds of him typing out the Declaration of Independance are also very remote. However, if someone watched him work and removed any letter he typed until he randomly hit a 'W' he'd pretty quickly get that first letter. If the process was repeated and only an 'H' was not removed, again it would not take much time and he'd be on his way to "When in the course..."

 

[jwoodie]

As usual, its most strident advocates confuse evolution with adaptation. The former is a tidy theory with no direct evidence to back it up, whereas the latter is easily observable and replicated.

 

[Ringel05]

The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God


Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

Attempting to prove God exists utilizing man's science is as foolish and fruitless as attempting to prove God doesn't exist utilizing man's science.

 

[BlindBoo]

ID is belief in something, other than the natural world we observe where we live and die in, created us and the world we live in.

On Scientism:

"So if science is distinct from scientism, what is it? Science is an activity that seeks to explore the natural world using well-established, clearly-delineated methods. Given the complexity of the universe, from the very big to very small, from inorganic to organic, there is a vast array of scientific disciplines, each with its own specific techniques. The number of different specializations is constantly increasing, leading to more questions and areas of exploration than ever before. Science expands our understanding, rather than limiting it.

Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning. Despite the fact that there are millions of species on our planet, scientism focuses an inordinate amount of its attention on human behavior and beliefs. Rather than working within carefully constructed boundaries and methodologies established by researchers, it broadly generalizes entire fields of academic expertise and dismisses many of them as inferior. With scientism, you will regularly hear explanations that rely on words like “merely”, “only”, “simply”, or “nothing more than”. Scientism restricts human inquiry.

It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the natural world. But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying that whatever he can’t catch in his nets does not exist (15). Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific."

What is Scientism?

 

[alang1216]

As usual, its most strident advocates confuse evolution with adaptation. The former is a tidy theory with no direct evidence to back it up, whereas the latter is easily observable and replicated.

As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation. Evolution is the result of adaptation. Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up. Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.

 

[jwoodie]

As usual, its most strident advocates confuse evolution with adaptation. The former is a tidy theory with no direct evidence to back it up, whereas the latter is easily observable and replicated.

As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation. Evolution is the result of adaptation. Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up. Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.

Polar Bears are white because of adaptation, not evolution. (They are still bears.) Get it?

P.S. Where are these mountains of direct evidence located?

 

[alang1216]

As usual, its most strident advocates confuse evolution with adaptation. The former is a tidy theory with no direct evidence to back it up, whereas the latter is easily observable and replicated.

As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation. Evolution is the result of adaptation. Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up. Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.

Polar Bears are white because of adaptation, not evolution. (They are still bears.) Get it?

P.S. Where are these mountains of direct evidence located?

Humans evolved from apes when they adapted to life on the savanna.

Almost any mountain composed of fossil-bearing, sedimentary layers will do. Study the fossil record carefully and you'll find that, of the trillions of fossils found there, not a single one violates the theory of evolution. There are no eyewitnesses but mountains of evidence.

 

[jwoodie]

Humans evolved from apes when they adapted to life on the savanna.

Almost any mountain composed of fossil-bearing, sedimentary layers will do. Study the fossil record carefully and you'll find that, of the trillions of fossils found there, not a single one violates the theory of evolution. There are no eyewitnesses but mountains of evidence.

Nice try, but the burden of proof is on the proponent of a theory. And your conclusory statements are not evidence of anything other then your limited state of mind.

 

[Wyatt earp]

As usual, its most strident advocates confuse evolution with adaptation. The former is a tidy theory with no direct evidence to back it up, whereas the latter is easily observable and replicated.

As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation. Evolution is the result of adaptation. Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up. Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.

Polar Bears are white because of adaptation, not evolution. (They are still bears.) Get it?

P.S. Where are these mountains of direct evidence located?

Humans evolved from apes when they adapted to life on the savanna.

Almost any mountain composed of fossil-bearing, sedimentary layers will do. Study the fossil record carefully and you'll find that, of the trillions of fossils found there, not a single one violates the theory of evolution. There are no eyewitnesses but mountains of evidence.

How do you know they weren't planted there to confuse?

 

[alang1216]

As usual, its most strident advocates confuse evolution with adaptation. The former is a tidy theory with no direct evidence to back it up, whereas the latter is easily observable and replicated.

As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation. Evolution is the result of adaptation. Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up. Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.

Polar Bears are white because of adaptation, not evolution. (They are still bears.) Get it?

P.S. Where are these mountains of direct evidence located?

Humans evolved from apes when they adapted to life on the savanna.

Almost any mountain composed of fossil-bearing, sedimentary layers will do. Study the fossil record carefully and you'll find that, of the trillions of fossils found there, not a single one violates the theory of evolution. There are no eyewitnesses but mountains of evidence.

How do you know they weren't planted there to confuse?

Planted by who? God? Is God deceiving us or does he have a sense of humor?

 

[alang1216]

Humans evolved from apes when they adapted to life on the savanna.

Almost any mountain composed of fossil-bearing, sedimentary layers will do. Study the fossil record carefully and you'll find that, of the trillions of fossils found there, not a single one violates the theory of evolution. There are no eyewitnesses but mountains of evidence.

Nice try, but the burden of proof is on the proponent of a theory. And your conclusory statements are not evidence of anything other then your limited state of mind.

So trillions of bits of supporting evidence is not sufficient? I have yet to hear ANY theory from you. Please meet the burden of proof requirement.

 

[Ringel05]

As usual, its most strident advocates confuse evolution with adaptation. The former is a tidy theory with no direct evidence to back it up, whereas the latter is easily observable and replicated.

As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation. Evolution is the result of adaptation. Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up. Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.

Polar Bears are white because of adaptation, not evolution. (They are still bears.) Get it?

P.S. Where are these mountains of direct evidence located?

Humans evolved from apes when they adapted to life on the savanna.

Almost any mountain composed of fossil-bearing, sedimentary layers will do. Study the fossil record carefully and you'll find that, of the trillions of fossils found there, not a single one violates the theory of evolution. There are no eyewitnesses but mountains of evidence.

How do you know they weren't planted there to confuse?

Planted by who? God? Is God deceiving us or does he have a sense of humor?

Try Corinthians..........

Doesn't mean you have to believe simply answering your question based on what the Bible says.

 

[ReinyDays]

Nice try, but the burden of proof is on the proponent of a theory. And your conclusory statements are not evidence of anything other then your limited state of mind.

As a corollary ... the opponent to a theory is burdened with stating a replacement that fits all the observed information ... if you wish to offer intelligent design, then what experiment can we conduct to show this? ... how does all the tiny changes in the terrestrial herbivore we find as we go up the rock strata "intelligently" produce whales ... or do you have evidence that whales have always existed ...

It's these incremental changes over long periods of time that we are trying to explain ... I'm fine if you want to reject Evolution, but what do you replace it with and how do you demonstrate this replacement ... other than through blind faith that God created whales on the Fifth Day ...

 

[alang1216]

As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation. Evolution is the result of adaptation. Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up. Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.

Polar Bears are white because of adaptation, not evolution. (They are still bears.) Get it?

P.S. Where are these mountains of direct evidence located?

Humans evolved from apes when they adapted to life on the savanna.

Almost any mountain composed of fossil-bearing, sedimentary layers will do. Study the fossil record carefully and you'll find that, of the trillions of fossils found there, not a single one violates the theory of evolution. There are no eyewitnesses but mountains of evidence.

How do you know they weren't planted there to confuse?

Planted by who? God? Is God deceiving us or does he have a sense of humor?

Try Corinthians..........

Doesn't mean you have to believe simply answering your question based on what the Bible says.

I'm not a believer and I'm not sure what in Corinthians answers my questions. Can you narrow it down?