[_ Old Earth _] Math sure points to Intelligent Design & Designer!!

[MrVersatile48]

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?

Enjoy the weekend! :angel:

Ian

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Quite the load of humbug

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Syntax,

How do you interpret the "fine tuning" MrVersatile offers up as evidence?

Peace

 

[reznwerks]

math

Was that the new math I heard about? Not having an answer for something is not proof of a creator. It would also help if you found some current evidence to back your premise Mr Versatile. 1961????? Quoting Darwin? We have come a long way since Darwin. Instead of being refuted his ideas are being confirmed more and more everyday. Can you show ANY evidence other than grandstanding by the YEC'rs that evolutionary theory is on the wrong track. Your post listed quite a few so called facts and maybe they are and maybe they are not. If they were meant to somehow discredit evolution don't you think someone would have picked up the ball to run with it? After all I can't think of a more competitive bunch than scientists looking to outdo the other for fame and money. I don't want to hear the lockstep theory either in which they have tow the line or be banished. That simply holds no water.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Syntax,

How do you interpret the "fine tuning" MrVersatile offers up as evidence?

Peace

The way life and the rest of the universe exists now is a result of the way particle interaction occurs. This is a given, unless you're dad with a spirituo-physical universe. However the reasoning there requires that the universe exists in order to produce us and nothing about the universe gives us reason to believe this to be true. It also has a false implication that the way the universe exists is somehow less likely than any other arrangement. The one we live in is just as likely as any other.

 

[MrVersatile48]

A lyric of mine links several threads of evidence

As to why such pieces don't destroy my faith in the Almighty Creator speaking all into being in 6 days & making sure each day's work was good, as in Genesis 1, do see the many learned articles & books etc at http://www.creationism.org :

http://www.creationism.org/topbar/faq.htm

http://www.creationism.org/articles/index.htm

http://www.creationism.org/books/index.htm

& http://www.discovery.org/csc :angel:

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

http://www.discovery.org/csc/essentialReadings.php

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php

Putting it to music for you, this lyric of mine links many fascinating debates in this fine forum, to warm up this cold, windy winter spell for readers:-

All The Wonders Of The Universe 8-)

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=18462 :-



Ian :-D

 

[blunthitta4life]

MrVersatile48:

How about you use some nonbias websites to support your ideas... Try searching with a website with the preffix -.edu then I will take you seriously.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Blunt

If ya hit my www you'll see that... :o

U R talking to a "Scouse" comedian... :




OK...OK... 8-)

I'll list 'em to brighten up this cold, wet, windy day for ya.. :angel:

6000 Year-Old Earth a Scriptural Concept?

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=26461

The Flood & Dinosaurs

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=24829

Conversation between Atheist professor and student.

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=26764

Showing of Hands

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=26820


Center searches for the science behind faith

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=27280


Quotes about Evolution and Creation

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=26809


Mutation, Evolution's last hope

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=26810



Back with more fun links to brighten up this cold, wet, windy winter 4 U...


As in "Give ToE frauds the Boot" :fadein:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=18585

See also Dump Dating Disasters!!! :robot:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=18642

& don't miss...

Give it up already!!!!!! :roll:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=18666

Or..

Evo Goes To Court... :

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=18041

Or..

Evo350%loopypoop... :-?

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=18429

Not to mention...

the 1 & only......

Double dog D*U*H, Deputy Dawg!!!! :o

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=18687

Enjoy!

Ian :-D

 

[LittleNipper]

MrVersatile48:

How about you use some nonbias websites to support your ideas... Try searching with a website with the preffix -.edu then I will take you seriously.

Why not provide some nonbias websites for evolution, if you can...?

 

[blunthitta4life]

Why not provide some nonbias websites for evolution, if you can...?

I have never searched the web for evolution related websites since I usally the databases at the campus library to search for articles that are found in various journals. I can only access these articles at the library. If you would really like me to scour the web for some websites I will.

 

[LittleNipper]

I have never searched the web for evolution related websites since I usally the databases at the campus library to search for articles that are found in various journals. I can only access these articles at the library. If you would really like me to scour the web for some websites I will.

The question might be asked, what makes Creationists bias and Evolutiions unbias?

 

[blunthitta4life]

The question might be asked, what makes Creationists bias and Evolutiions unbias?

Thats a good question. First off, I want to point out that I didn't say creationists were bias, just those websites that were posted were bias.

Posting creationists website to debunk evolution is like using nazi sites to debunk the holocaust. The intention of the websites is to promote an agenda or a belief, usually misrepresenting facts. How reliable is the Center for Science Cultureor and http://www.creationism.org in representing evolution?

Contrary to what some of you think, scientists aren't dependent on the belief of evolution nor are we trying to infiltrate Christian beliefs with "godless" science. If it was disproven tomorrow, we would then seek out what is the mechanism for all the diversity we see.

 

[LittleNipper]

Thats a good question. First off, I want to point out that I didn't say creationists were bias, just those websites that were posted were bias.

Posting creationists website to debunk evolution is like using nazi sites to debunk the holocaust. The intention of the websites is to promote an agenda or a belief, usually misrepresenting facts. How reliable is the Center for Science Cultureor and http://www.creationism.org in representing evolution?

Contrary to what some of you think, scientists aren't dependent on the belief of evolution nor are we trying to infiltrate Christian beliefs with "godless" science. If it was disproven tomorrow, we would then seek out what is the mechanism for all the diversity we see.

Changing the words (creationist's web site) to evolutionist's web sites and I'd say you had it just about right. Diversity and variation are not at issue. What is at issue is the silly notion that given hundreds of millions of years, a one celled organism would of necessity or by accident produce multi celled descendents of greater and greater complexity. There is simply no reason why natural simplicity should become complex-----certainly not as the earth becomes less hospitable.

 

[Hugo]

What is at issue is the silly notion that given hundreds of millions of years, a one celled organism would of necessity or by accident produce multi celled descendents of greater and greater complexity.

How do you think it happened? Life as it is just popped into being out of thin air? Let us be reasonable.

You called it silly, but I look at this unfolding of life in wonderment, and I see what "transcends yet is immanent in the world."



(from Webster's entry for 'theism')

 

[blunthitta4life]

What is at issue is the silly notion that given hundreds of millions of years, a one celled organism would of necessity or by accident produce multi celled descendents of greater and greater complexity.

EVOLUTION OCCURS IN POPULATIONS NOT IN INDIVIDUALS.

There is simply no reason why natural simplicity should become complex-----certainly not as the earth becomes less hospitable.

Actually there is, if there was no evolution then there would be no diversity.

The earth started off as hospitable, in fact it was barren. Also, hospitable is pretty subjuective. Thermophillic bacteria found in boiling water of Old Faithful and other geysers at Yellow Stone Park find it pretty hospitable.

 

[LittleNipper]

How do you think it happened? Life as it is just popped into being out of thin air? Let us be reasonable.

You called it silly, but I look at this unfolding of life in wonderment, and I see what "transcends yet is immanent in the world."



(from Webster's entry for 'theism')

A CREATOR GOD is hardly a silly notion. Accidental, spontaneous generation is.
Creation and design is not.

 

[LittleNipper]

Actually there is, if there was no evolution then there would be no diversity.

The earth started off as hospitable, in fact it was barren. Also, hospitable is pretty subjuective. Thermophillic bacteria found in boiling water of Old Faithful and other geysers at Yellow Stone Park find it pretty hospitable.

POPULATIONS do not exist without individuals. The earth started off as void.

 

[blunthitta4life]

POPULATIONS do not exist without individuals

Alright.... but it takes a population to produce the genetic diversity needed to cause it to evolve. It would impossible for 3 generations of an organism to produce any new physical features. It could produce changes at the cellular function perhaps.

 

[LittleNipper]

Alright.... but it takes a population to produce the genetic diversity needed to cause it to evolve. It would impossible for 3 generations of an organism to produce any new physical features. It could produce changes at the cellular function perhaps.

Well, you may wish to consider your own conclusions when evolution supposes that bacteria became man in a mere billion rears. The math is not possible. The only logical conclusion is that GOD created everything in a short time and that GOD created man as a special creation...

 

[blunthitta4life]

Show me how the math is not possible, support your claim please.