M
MrVersatile48
Guest
In other words, Darwin-drivel just don't add up,dudes!
See http://www.christianitytoday.com & click magazine:-
Many Christian mathematicians think that numbers point to God.
Three numbers in particular suggest evidence for God's existence. They are 1/1010123, 10162, and eπi.
Fine-tuning the universe
The first recent number that points to God is 1 in 10 to the 10 to the 123.
This number comes from astronomy. Oxford professor Roger Penrose discusses it in his book The Large, the Small, and the Human Mind.
It derives from a formula by Jacob Beckenstein and Stephen Hawking and describes the chances of our universe being created at random.
Penrose spoofs this view by picturing God throwing a dart at all the possible space-time continua and hitting the universe we inhabit. The Beckenstein-Hawking formula is too complicated to discuss here, but another approach to the same problem involves the fine-tuning of the universe and the existence of habitable planets.
The fine-tuning of the universe is shown in the precise strengths of four basic forces.
Gravity is the best known of these forces and is the weakest, with a relative strength of 1. Next comes the weak nuclear force that holds the neutron together.
It is 1034 times stronger than gravity but works only at subatomic distances.
Electromagnetism is 1,000 times stronger than the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force, which keeps protons together in the nucleus of an atom, is 100 times stronger yet.
If even one of these forces had a slightly different strength, the life-sustaining universe we know would be impossible.
If gravity were slightly stronger, all stars would be large, like the ones that produce iron and other heavier elements, but they would burn out too rapidly for the development of life.
On the other hand, if gravity were weaker, the stars would endure, but none would produce the heavier elements necessary to form planets.
The weak nuclear force controls the decay of neutrons.
If it were stronger, neutrons would decay more rapidly, and there would be nothing in the universe but hydrogen. However, if this force were weaker, all the hydrogen would turn into helium and other elements.
The electromagnetic force binds atoms to one another to form molecules.
If it were either weaker or stronger, no chemical bonds would form, so no life could exist.
Finally, the strong nuclear force overcomes the electromagnetic force and allows the atomic nucleus to exist.
Like the weak nuclear force, changing it would produce a universe with only hydrogen or with no hydrogen.
In sum, without planets, hydrogen, and chemical bonds, there would be no life as we know it.
Besides these 4 factors, there are at least 25 others that require pinpoint precision to produce a universe that contains life.
Getting each of them exactly right suggests the presence of an Intelligent Designer.
The second component to be considered when calculating the likelihood of this life-supporting universe is the presence of habitable planets.
In addition to the fine-tuning of the whole universe, there needs to be a carefully specified place where life can reside.
Life as we know it can only exist within certain limits.
There are at least 45 parameters, from the size of our galaxy to the mass of the moon, which permit the presence of life on a planet.
A huge galaxy erupts with too many stars and thus disturbs planetary orbits, but a tiny galaxy does not produce enough heavy elements for a planet to form.
At the other end of the spectrum, too large a moon destabilizes a planet's orbit, while having no moon or one that is too small permits a planet to wobble as it spins and disrupts the planet's climate.
From these 45 planetary characteristics alone, Hugh Ross, in his chapter in Mere Creation, calculates there is less than 1 chance in 1069 of habitable planets occurring at random.
The fine-tuning of the four physical forces and the presence of one habitable planet are just two of the components that would go into a formula to predict the probability of a life-supporting universe.
The first one to try to calculate this number was Frank Drake in 1961, when he listed fewer than ten factors.
Coming at the same problem from a different direction by calculating the entropy of black holes, Penrose says the number is 1 in 10 to the 10 to the 123. This number is beyond human comprehension. 10 to the 10 to the 3 would be written as 10 followed by 999 zeros.
To write 10 to the 10 to the 123 in one line would extend beyond the bounds of the universe. If Penrose is right in calculating the odds of a life-supporting universe at 1 in 10 to the 10 to the 123, then a strong case for a Creator emerges.
Not enough time
The second number that points to God comes from the field of biology. William Dembski, in The Creation Hypothesis, suggests the following argument.
Darwin thought that all life, including humans, arose from a one-celled organism.
But to get from a one-celled organism to a human being with a least a trillion cells, there would have to be many changes.
Darwin says these changes were produced at random, but they would have had to occur in the right order.
It doesn't do any good to give an organism a leg until it has a nervous system to control it. Even if we limit the number of necessary mutations to 1,000 and argue that half of these mutations are beneficial, the odds against getting 1,000 beneficial mutations in the proper order is 21000. Expressed in decimal form, this number is about 10301.
10301 mutations is a number far beyond the capacity of the universe to generate.
Even if every particle in the universe mutated at the fastest possible rate and had done so since the Big Bang, there still would not be enough mutations.
There are about 1080 elementary particles in the universe.
The fastest they could mutate would be Planck time, or 10-42 seconds. Planck time is the smallest unit of time and can be approximated as the time it would take two photons traveling at 186,000 miles per second to pass each other.
If every particle in the universe (1080) had been mutating at the fastest possible rate (1042) since the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago, or 1017 seconds ago, it would produce 1080 x 1042 x 1017 or 10139 mutations.
But to have a chance at even 1,000 beneficial mutations takes 10301 tries.
Thus, the chance of getting 1,000 beneficial mutations out of all the mutations the universe can generate is 10139 divided by 10301, or 1 chance in 10162.
For Darwin's theory to have a chance of being right, the universe would have to be a trillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion times older than it is.
Because the universe is so young, Darwin's argument fails, and William Paley's contention that design presupposes a designer becomes more persuasive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I must interject here - for Darwin-drivel to be right would DEMAND that ALL mutations are both beneficial & continued
But, in fact, every mutation known to scientific observation is both detrimental & soon corrected The X-Men movies are sheer fantasy, as are the cartoon special FX that evo-loopies use to con kids into believing that you can actually & clearly see a continuous evolutionary ladder/chain
If Darwin-drivel were right, the differences between so-callled adjoining species, on his so-called ladder/chain, would be as tiny as those between adjoining frames of a movie
The plain fact that we can so clearly distinguish between species shows each & every life form was Designer-Made - by the Most Brilliant Brain in the Universe - as I said on BBC Radio Merseyside the lunchtime after Nutty Prof Richard (Dorky) Dawkins' pathetic 1st of 2 documentaries, giving away his atheist brainwashing by calling for the rejection & destruction of all religion
As Dr Adrian Snelling & Prof Phil Johnson said,, in their Darwin Revisited UK tour @ 18 months ago, "Neo-Darwinism is a house of cards that is rapidly crumbling..If it were subjected to the same rigourous investigation as genuine science, it would be rejected outright"
Hundreds of top scientists, from micro-biology to astronomy, see SO much evidence of Intelligent Design that they reject their atheist brainwashing & worship the Almighty Creator of the Universe: join us on Sunday & get a liife: eternal life thru Christ, who is none less than the Creator in human form, as John 1, Colossians 1 & Hebrews 1 so clearly show - as I also said on radio
Adding that Darwin-drivel contradicts @ the most established law known to science: entropy, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, means that all things, left to themselves, tend to decay - not to improve
I challenged evo-loopies to come to Chester Zoo & try to find the MILLIONS of 'missing links' - between every so-called step along the 'ladder'
The Cambrian explosion - as stated by 23 top scientists in "The Grand Canyon: A Creationist Viewpoint" - shows no evidence at all of microbes-to-man evolution
The simplest & most complex fossils are intermingled with no sign of developing one from another
Back to the article..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, numbers from astronomy, biology, and theoretical mathematics point to a rational mind behind the universe.
To be sure, they do not point to the personal God of the Bible as such. Yet they are not inimical to the biblical God, either.
The apostle John prepared the way for this conclusion when he used the word for logic, reason, and rationalityâ€â€logosâ€â€to describe Christ at the beginning of his Gospel: "In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and the logos was God."
When we think logically, which is the goal of mathematics, we are led to think of God.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like the cue for a song to me..
Altogether now..
1.2.3..
When ya pooper-scoop evo-loopy-poop..
don't forget to was your hands now!! :-D
Pass it on to your networks... 8-)
& teach ya teachers/professors a thing or many on Monday, OK? :D
Enjoy the weekend! :angel:
Ian :P
See http://www.christianitytoday.com & click magazine:-
Many Christian mathematicians think that numbers point to God.
Three numbers in particular suggest evidence for God's existence. They are 1/1010123, 10162, and eπi.
Fine-tuning the universe
The first recent number that points to God is 1 in 10 to the 10 to the 123.
This number comes from astronomy. Oxford professor Roger Penrose discusses it in his book The Large, the Small, and the Human Mind.
It derives from a formula by Jacob Beckenstein and Stephen Hawking and describes the chances of our universe being created at random.
Penrose spoofs this view by picturing God throwing a dart at all the possible space-time continua and hitting the universe we inhabit. The Beckenstein-Hawking formula is too complicated to discuss here, but another approach to the same problem involves the fine-tuning of the universe and the existence of habitable planets.
The fine-tuning of the universe is shown in the precise strengths of four basic forces.
Gravity is the best known of these forces and is the weakest, with a relative strength of 1. Next comes the weak nuclear force that holds the neutron together.
It is 1034 times stronger than gravity but works only at subatomic distances.
Electromagnetism is 1,000 times stronger than the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force, which keeps protons together in the nucleus of an atom, is 100 times stronger yet.
If even one of these forces had a slightly different strength, the life-sustaining universe we know would be impossible.
If gravity were slightly stronger, all stars would be large, like the ones that produce iron and other heavier elements, but they would burn out too rapidly for the development of life.
On the other hand, if gravity were weaker, the stars would endure, but none would produce the heavier elements necessary to form planets.
The weak nuclear force controls the decay of neutrons.
If it were stronger, neutrons would decay more rapidly, and there would be nothing in the universe but hydrogen. However, if this force were weaker, all the hydrogen would turn into helium and other elements.
The electromagnetic force binds atoms to one another to form molecules.
If it were either weaker or stronger, no chemical bonds would form, so no life could exist.
Finally, the strong nuclear force overcomes the electromagnetic force and allows the atomic nucleus to exist.
Like the weak nuclear force, changing it would produce a universe with only hydrogen or with no hydrogen.
In sum, without planets, hydrogen, and chemical bonds, there would be no life as we know it.
Besides these 4 factors, there are at least 25 others that require pinpoint precision to produce a universe that contains life.
Getting each of them exactly right suggests the presence of an Intelligent Designer.
The second component to be considered when calculating the likelihood of this life-supporting universe is the presence of habitable planets.
In addition to the fine-tuning of the whole universe, there needs to be a carefully specified place where life can reside.
Life as we know it can only exist within certain limits.
There are at least 45 parameters, from the size of our galaxy to the mass of the moon, which permit the presence of life on a planet.
A huge galaxy erupts with too many stars and thus disturbs planetary orbits, but a tiny galaxy does not produce enough heavy elements for a planet to form.
At the other end of the spectrum, too large a moon destabilizes a planet's orbit, while having no moon or one that is too small permits a planet to wobble as it spins and disrupts the planet's climate.
From these 45 planetary characteristics alone, Hugh Ross, in his chapter in Mere Creation, calculates there is less than 1 chance in 1069 of habitable planets occurring at random.
The fine-tuning of the four physical forces and the presence of one habitable planet are just two of the components that would go into a formula to predict the probability of a life-supporting universe.
The first one to try to calculate this number was Frank Drake in 1961, when he listed fewer than ten factors.
Coming at the same problem from a different direction by calculating the entropy of black holes, Penrose says the number is 1 in 10 to the 10 to the 123. This number is beyond human comprehension. 10 to the 10 to the 3 would be written as 10 followed by 999 zeros.
To write 10 to the 10 to the 123 in one line would extend beyond the bounds of the universe. If Penrose is right in calculating the odds of a life-supporting universe at 1 in 10 to the 10 to the 123, then a strong case for a Creator emerges.
Not enough time
The second number that points to God comes from the field of biology. William Dembski, in The Creation Hypothesis, suggests the following argument.
Darwin thought that all life, including humans, arose from a one-celled organism.
But to get from a one-celled organism to a human being with a least a trillion cells, there would have to be many changes.
Darwin says these changes were produced at random, but they would have had to occur in the right order.
It doesn't do any good to give an organism a leg until it has a nervous system to control it. Even if we limit the number of necessary mutations to 1,000 and argue that half of these mutations are beneficial, the odds against getting 1,000 beneficial mutations in the proper order is 21000. Expressed in decimal form, this number is about 10301.
10301 mutations is a number far beyond the capacity of the universe to generate.
Even if every particle in the universe mutated at the fastest possible rate and had done so since the Big Bang, there still would not be enough mutations.
There are about 1080 elementary particles in the universe.
The fastest they could mutate would be Planck time, or 10-42 seconds. Planck time is the smallest unit of time and can be approximated as the time it would take two photons traveling at 186,000 miles per second to pass each other.
If every particle in the universe (1080) had been mutating at the fastest possible rate (1042) since the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago, or 1017 seconds ago, it would produce 1080 x 1042 x 1017 or 10139 mutations.
But to have a chance at even 1,000 beneficial mutations takes 10301 tries.
Thus, the chance of getting 1,000 beneficial mutations out of all the mutations the universe can generate is 10139 divided by 10301, or 1 chance in 10162.
For Darwin's theory to have a chance of being right, the universe would have to be a trillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion times older than it is.
Because the universe is so young, Darwin's argument fails, and William Paley's contention that design presupposes a designer becomes more persuasive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I must interject here - for Darwin-drivel to be right would DEMAND that ALL mutations are both beneficial & continued
But, in fact, every mutation known to scientific observation is both detrimental & soon corrected The X-Men movies are sheer fantasy, as are the cartoon special FX that evo-loopies use to con kids into believing that you can actually & clearly see a continuous evolutionary ladder/chain
If Darwin-drivel were right, the differences between so-callled adjoining species, on his so-called ladder/chain, would be as tiny as those between adjoining frames of a movie
The plain fact that we can so clearly distinguish between species shows each & every life form was Designer-Made - by the Most Brilliant Brain in the Universe - as I said on BBC Radio Merseyside the lunchtime after Nutty Prof Richard (Dorky) Dawkins' pathetic 1st of 2 documentaries, giving away his atheist brainwashing by calling for the rejection & destruction of all religion
As Dr Adrian Snelling & Prof Phil Johnson said,, in their Darwin Revisited UK tour @ 18 months ago, "Neo-Darwinism is a house of cards that is rapidly crumbling..If it were subjected to the same rigourous investigation as genuine science, it would be rejected outright"
Hundreds of top scientists, from micro-biology to astronomy, see SO much evidence of Intelligent Design that they reject their atheist brainwashing & worship the Almighty Creator of the Universe: join us on Sunday & get a liife: eternal life thru Christ, who is none less than the Creator in human form, as John 1, Colossians 1 & Hebrews 1 so clearly show - as I also said on radio
Adding that Darwin-drivel contradicts @ the most established law known to science: entropy, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, means that all things, left to themselves, tend to decay - not to improve
I challenged evo-loopies to come to Chester Zoo & try to find the MILLIONS of 'missing links' - between every so-called step along the 'ladder'
The Cambrian explosion - as stated by 23 top scientists in "The Grand Canyon: A Creationist Viewpoint" - shows no evidence at all of microbes-to-man evolution
The simplest & most complex fossils are intermingled with no sign of developing one from another
Back to the article..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, numbers from astronomy, biology, and theoretical mathematics point to a rational mind behind the universe.
To be sure, they do not point to the personal God of the Bible as such. Yet they are not inimical to the biblical God, either.
The apostle John prepared the way for this conclusion when he used the word for logic, reason, and rationalityâ€â€logosâ€â€to describe Christ at the beginning of his Gospel: "In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and the logos was God."
When we think logically, which is the goal of mathematics, we are led to think of God.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like the cue for a song to me..
Altogether now..
1.2.3..
When ya pooper-scoop evo-loopy-poop..
don't forget to was your hands now!! :-D
Pass it on to your networks... 8-)
& teach ya teachers/professors a thing or many on Monday, OK? :D
Enjoy the weekend! :angel:
Ian :P
: 