I can prove God exists

[invest07]

p sublime

I have never said it is impossible for DNA to evolve. I have said that the probability of that occurring is so incredibly minimal as to warrant so serious consideration by an unbiased, rational thinker.

If the math don't work and there ain't no support in nature (in the form of other, simpler codes) the concept of DNA evolving has 2 strikes against it with Randy Johnson on the mound and a 95 mile per hour knuckleball on the way.

Not impossible but nowhere near probable.

It is numerically possible that I will win the FL lottery this Sat. I believe the odds are 47,000,000 to 1 that I won't but that is not impossible. (I won't bet even a dollar with odds like that.) And the odds of evolution arranging 6 billion complex chemicals in precise order and location are 4 to the 6 billionth power. This makes my odds of winning the lottery look astronomical. This is a number followed by several thousand pages of zeros. Not impossible but nowhere near probable. So small as to merit no serious consideration, regardless of what the Darwinistas say.

 

[invest07]

icono1

One of the topics you might want to follow is new developments in quantum mechanics. It may turn out that there are 2 sets of physical laws for the universe:

1. One set of laws for us in the macro world. Newton's laws of motion work here.
2. One set of laws for the quantum world. Newton's laws of motion don't seem to apply here.

There is mounting evidence that our concepts of location in space and linear time do not work at the quantum level. A single particle has been documented as simultaneously existing in more than one location at the same time. And certain quantum level waves react to stimulus before the stimulus is applied.

Quantum mechanics has the potential to upset a lot of scientific apple carts. If you like chaos theory, you will love quantum mechanics.

 

[9sublime]

It is numerically possible that I will win the FL lottery this Sat. I believe the odds are 47,000,000 to 1 that I won't but that is not impossible. (I won't bet even a dollar with odds like that.) And the odds of evolution arranging 6 billion complex chemicals in precise order and location are 4 to the 6 billionth power. This makes my odds of winning the lottery look astronomical. This is a number followed by several thousand pages of zeros. Not impossible but nowhere near probable. So small as to merit no serious consideration, regardless of what the Darwinistas say.

Life is an unbeliavable thing full of gaps that are being continually filled. The one that has consistently never had any groundbreaking proof towards being proved is that there is a God.

In fact, all the time we are understanding things that make science the creator, not the God. We will probably never find out the origins of DNA, but I don't like filling in the gap between DNA is so complex it couldnt really have evolved to a God had to create it.

 

[Questerr]

Just a point

I'd like to point out that William of Occam is rolling over in his grave because of his thread.

That Catholic theologian spent his entire life proving that you can't prove God via logic, you can only take God on faith.

 

[Coyote]

I'd like to point out that William of Occam is rolling over in his grave because of his thread.

That Catholic theologian spent his entire life proving that you can't prove God via logic, you can only take God on faith.

That is funny

 

[invest07]

Questerr

Thomas Aquinas would disagree vehemently with William of Occam.

 

[9sublime]

Thomas Aquanias was a bit of a moron.

 

[invest07]

For all you Darwinistas who still think DNA could have evolved, lets take a look at how much work is actually involved in placing 4 to the 6 billionth power of chemicals in the proper sequence and position by chance.

Macroegans love to quote the age of the earth at 4.6 billion years and life at 3 billion years. Since DNA is so incredibly complex, evolutionists speculate that early life was based on something else than DNA. I am going to make an assumption here that DNA has been around for 1.5 billion years. I can't defend this number and if you want to say 2 billion or 1 billion years, that is OK with me. Neither of us really knows and it doesn't make an iota difference what number you chose.

If you multiply 60 seconds x 24 hours x 365 days x 1,500,000,000 you arrive at 788,400,000,000,000 seconds that have elapsed since DNA appeared. If my exponential notation is correct, this rounds to 8 x 10 to the 15 power.

The random and unfocused for forces that are alleged to drive evolution must arrange 6 billion chemicals on the human DNA strand in precisely the right order and mix. There are 4 possible amino acids that can be placed at each location. So evolution has to place 4 x 10 to the 6,000,000,000,000 power of chemicals in the right slot.

My exponential notation is a little rusty and this number is way beyond the capacity of Windows calculator so try to follow this reasoning and let me know if I screw up. If I divide the total number of elapsed seconds by the number of possible locations for the amino acids I arrive at the number of "tries" evolution has to make, each second, uninterrupted, for 1.5 billion years, to try all the possible combinations.

My calculation is that each second requires 5 x 10 raised to the 5,999,999,999,985 power. That is 50 followed by a few thousand pages of zeros.

Every second.
Without interruption.
No time out for ice ages and global warming periods.
No time out for meteor strikes and extinctions and draughts.
No time off at all for 1.5 billion years.

And how exactly does evolution, which is random and unfocused, put together a DNA molecule anyway? The fastest computer NASA owns couldn't perform 5 x 10 to the 5,999,999,999,985 calculations a second virtually.

The point I am trying to make by all this math crapola is that the probability of DNA evolving are astronomically slim.

So slim as to merit no serious consideration from anyone who is truly unbiased and has half a functioning brain.

My numbers are on the table as is my challenge to find a code or language which anyone can demonstrate that arose without intelligence. If the numbers are flawed, let me know where and give me your calculation. If such a code/language exists, name it. Otherwise, maybe you Darwinistas should consider the possibility that maybe, jusy maybe, ID is a possibility.

 

[Coyote]

For all you Darwinistas who still think DNA could have evolved, lets take a look at how much work is actually involved in placing 4 to the 6 billionth power of chemicals in the proper sequence and position by chance.

I'm not going to read this entire thing simply because it can all be summed up in the fallacy of the first paragraph.

The primary principle in evolution is that life evolved from the simple to the complex.

DNA evolved from a few very simple molecules to the complex structure we know today over an incredible period of time.

It did not start at step 4 to the 6 billionth.

 

[numinus]

I'd like to point out that William of Occam is rolling over in his grave because of his thread.

That Catholic theologian spent his entire life proving that you can't prove God via logic, you can only take God on faith.

Willy did no such thing. His reductionist philosophy of nominalism is an ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT - precisely the opposite of what you are saying.

The scientific precept, okham's razor, may be attributed to him but there is no direct evidence of it. What the principle is saying that competing scientific theories, like modes of existence, may not be multiplied unnecessarily.

 

[numinus]

Thomas Aquanias was a bit of a moron.

Thomas Aquainas was a rationalist - as are many scientific thinkers of history. Where do you suppose science would be without its basic foundation of rationalism, hmm?

 

[numinus]

icono1

One of the topics you might want to follow is new developments in quantum mechanics. It may turn out that there are 2 sets of physical laws for the universe:

1. One set of laws for us in the macro world. Newton's laws of motion work here.
2. One set of laws for the quantum world. Newton's laws of motion don't seem to apply here.

There is mounting evidence that our concepts of location in space and linear time do not work at the quantum level. A single particle has been documented as simultaneously existing in more than one location at the same time. And certain quantum level waves react to stimulus before the stimulus is applied.

Quantum mechanics has the potential to upset a lot of scientific apple carts. If you like chaos theory, you will love quantum mechanics.

The newtonian and einsteinian expression for energy are approximations of the SAME taylor infinite series E=mc^2 + 1/2mv^2 + ..... obtained by binomial expansion.

What you said is another way of seeing heisenberg's uncertainty principle - that either the position OR momentum may be known NOT both.

 

[numinus]

That is funny

Funny - but unfortunately, not true.

 

[9sublime]

Thomas Aquainas was a rationalist - as are many scientific thinkers of history. Where do you suppose science would be without its basic foundation of rationalism, hmm?

I don't think he constitutes the basic foundation of rationalism. His theory on natural law was unresearched and anything but rational.

 

[dahermit]

Does God exist.

The discussion has deteriorated into a unnecessarily complex argument argument.
For the sake of simplicity, concede that we are discussing God from the perspective of a Christian Fundamentalist. Given that, randomly select a few thousand terminally ill cancer patients. Divide them into random groups. Have one group pray for their lives. Have a control group do nothing, have another group meditate, have another be treated with current anti-cancer treatments, and so on. After a year compile the data, and do the test again with different subjects to see the results of the first test can be replicated.
I am sure that you will have a better indication of if God exists after the experiments than if you continue to argue upon the lines this discussion has taken.