Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 4

I use this example to explain the statistical impossibility of life starting spontaneously:

The odds of the necessary amino acids coming together in the correct sequence to form a “simple cell” are akin to blowing up a print shop and as the type rained down from the sky, it landed in the exact order to create the complete unabridged dictionary. In others words, it is virtually impossible. Now take the fact that we are not made up of simple cells, but of complex ones, and the fact that we are not single celled organisms, but made up of complex series of millions of cells and the odds of this happening by accident are so astronomical that it is completely impossible.

For those of you who want to see the actual numbers, here they are as presented by Randall Niles on his “The Journey” website, quoting Creation by Design by Mark Eastman, MD:

“In the last 30 years a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000.

…the odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. The odds led Fred Hoyle to state that the probability of spontaneous generation ‘is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the contents therein.’ Mathematicians tell us that any event with an improbability greater than one chance in 1050 is in the realm of metaphysics — i.e. a miracle.”

Randall Niles goes on to quote Harold Marowitz, an atheist physicist:

“Harold Marowitz, an atheist physicist, created mathematical models by imagining broths of living bacteria that were superheated until all the complex chemicals were broken down into basic building blocks. After cooling the mixtures, Marowitz used physics calculations to conclude that the odds of a single bacterium reassembling by chance is one in 10100,000,000,000. Wow! How can I grasp such a large statistic? Well, it’s more likely that I would win the state lottery every week for a million years by purchasing just one ticket each week.”

This is what truly amazes me. How can any scientist, or for that matter, any rational person, look at this statistical data and not have serious doubts about the theory of evolution? Foregoing any of the other problems with the theory of evolution, this statistical data alone is enough to completely shatter it.

In the words of George Wald, from his 1954 article “The Origin of Life” published in the Scientific American magazine:

“When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!”

H.S. Lipson, in his publication “A Physicist Looks at Evolution”, says:

“In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit with it.”

This takes us back to the points the commentator I sited in “Evolution’s Big Problems” made:

“After scientific evidence can be eliminated, it can be concluded that people believe in evolution for [one] or [two] main reasons:

1. Societal/Peer Pressure (“people told me to believe it” or “lots of other people believe it, so I should too.”)
2. Personal Desire (i.e. “if God exists, I have to follow some rules I’m not too fond of”)

Essentially, evolution is a religion. It was concocted over 150 years ago, and they’re still searching for that first shred of evidence. At this point, they seem to have given up on evidence, and instead just combine wild, improvable theories with excuses.”

As I’ve written these posts, I have received numerous comments. I have been called names, had my intelligence disparaged and been told that I follow a “non existent god”. Yet no one has been able to logically refute any of the evidence I have offered here. Not one person.
So far, all they have been able to do is fall back on insults when their arguments run dry.

You atheist evolutionist who want to hold to your failed “god” of evolution may do so. I choose to stay with my God, Almighty God, the Creator of the Universe. I have more evidence of His existence than you ever thought of having for yours.

“The Journey”.

Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 1.
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 2.
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 3.
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 4.
Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 5.

10 Responses to “Evolution’s Big Problems, Part 4”

  1. Matt says:

    i can see your problems with the theory but i will ask you to look at it like this. i have no idea what the number is but take these for example. The chance for a meteor hitting the earth in the remarkably big universe. ( i dont know the figure). i can almost gurantee this will happen eventually. even take a look at it in a smaller stance. The chance of winnning the lotteries. i dont know what it is. people say it will never be me but it can happen to anyone.

    Now relating to the post. Statistacally impossible makes it seem like it cant happen. Now whether it was evolution, or creation. although the chance is extremely high it is still possible.

    Now i would like to comment on what i was told the other day. Science is niave and followers can not bring themselves to believe that they were made for a higher purpose that they will never understand. Faith.
    It could be taken that christians cant bring themselves to believe that they were the products of pure chance.

    Now i would just like to say i am neither Christian or Aetheist. I am neither and am just here to express my views.

  2. Steve says:

    Your views are always welcome here. We greatly appreciate you taking the time to read us and comment.
    You said, “It could be taken that christians cant bring themselves to believe that they were the products of pure chance.”
    The reason I can’t believe in evolution and creation by random chance, is that the evidence does not support it. I’ve shown that through this series of articles. The Bible is made up of eyewitness accounts of people who actually met and interfaced with God. Taken at face value, which is more believable. Science has disproved itself in the case of evolution. Nothing has so far disproved the Bible.

  3. Starbix says:

    “Nothing has so far disproved the Bible.”

    Try http://www.biblicalerrancy.org/

    Also try http://www.talkorigins.org/

    “Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams

  4. Steve says:

    I looked at these sites years ago.
    Biblical Errancy takes isolated events, taken out of context from the Bible and compares them against modern day social mores. That doesn’t prove anything.
    Talk Origins just reiterates the same old evolution line. No new information at all.
    I didn’t panic.

  5. Starbix says:

    How are these taken out of context and compared to modern social mores?

    “Isn’t Jesus a false prophet since he wrongly predicted in Matt. 12:40
    that he would be buried three days and three nights as Jonah was in the
    whale three days and three nights? Friday afternoon to early Sunday
    morning is only one and a half days.”

    “Jesus said, “whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of
    hell fire” (Matt. 5:22). Yet, he himself did so repeatedly, as Matt.
    23:17, 19 and Luke 11:40 and 12:20 show. Shouldn’t he be in danger of
    hell too?”

    “How can Num. 23:19, which says God doesn’t repent, be reconciled
    with Ex. 32:14, which clearly says he does?”

    “How can Ex. 33:20, which says no man can see God’s face and live, be
    squared with Gen. 32:30, which says a man saw God’s face and his life
    was preserved?”

    “In Psalm 139:7-11 we are told God is everywhere. If so, why would
    God need to come down to earth to see a city (Gen. 11:5) when he is
    already here? And how could Satan leave the presence of the Lord (Job
    1: 12, 2:7)?”

    “How could Jesus, whom the New Testament repeatedly refers to as the
    son of man, be our savior when this is clearly forestalled by Psalm
    146:3 (“Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man in whom
    there is no help”) and Job 25:6 (“How much less man, that is a worm? and
    the son of man, which is a worm”)?”

    “Even many of the staunchest defenders of Jesus admit that his
    comment in Matt. 10:34 (“I came not to send peace but a sword”)
    contradicts verses such as Matt. 26:52 (“Put up again thy sword into his
    place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword”).”

    “The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Rom. 1:3, Acts
    2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies
    in Matt. 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who
    was not his natural father (the Virgin Birth)?”

    “Lastly, in Matt. 15:24 Jesus said, “I am not sent but unto the lost
    sheep of the house of Israel,” but later told his followers to “Go ye
    therefore, and teach all nations” (Matt 28:19). To whom, then, are they
    to go–only to the Jews, or everyone?”

    These are just taken from the introductory pamphlets and show no sign of being isolated events, being taken out of context or being compared to modern social mores. I am not trying to be spiteful, I just enjoy a good healthy debate.

    “Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams

  6. Steve says:

    Let me start a new post for this, so that we won’t clutter up this post’s comments.

  7. Starbix says:

    Sounds good to me

  8. Steve says:

    I’ll try to get it put up today, but my schedule is a bit hectic, so it might be tomorrow. Watch this comment section or the blog’s main page.

  9. Steve says:

    Please see the post, dealing with your questions, here.

  10. HackThis says:

    ‘This is what truly amazes me. How can any scientist, or for that matter, any rational person, look at this statistical data and not have serious doubts about the theory of evolution? Foregoing any of the other problems with the theory of evolution, this statistical data alone is enough to completely shatter it’

    Statistics dont matter.
    99.9999999999999999% chance- fire and hotness or ice and coldness
    0.0000000000000001% chance-life

Leave a Reply