Celtic Heroes

Humans are not perfect. Far from it.

Humans are not perfect. Far from it.

Well, it depends what you mean by perfect. We are not perfect in many ways such as in our attitudes or emotions. But I think his point is that when you look at how well our bodies work together it is hard to believe that they were put together by chance. Oh and here are the figures I promised you It might be a little sketchy. I should warn you that this is a very long post.

The way to prove evolution wrong is mathematical probability. The problem is simply whether a complex system, in which many components function unitedly together, and in which each component is uniquely necessary to the efficient functioning of the whole, could ever arise by random processes. The question is especially incisive when we deal with living systems. Inorganic relationships are often quite complex, living organisms are immensely more so. The evolution model(not theory, theories can be tested. That is the definition of a theory. Since neither can be tested, neither are theories; they are models; this is fact) nevertheless assumes all of these have arisen by chance and naturalism. Assume a "sea" of freely available components, each uniquely capable of performing a specific useful function. What is the probability that two or more of them can come together by chance to form an integrated functioning organism? As long as the number of components in the organism is small, the chance association in this way is a reasonable possibility. For example, consider two components, A and B. If they happen to link up in the form A-B, say, the combined system will work, but B-A will not work. Thus, there is one chance out of two that these two components will combine into a functioning system. That is, there is a 1/2 probability of "success." If there are three components,-A,B, and C- there are six possible ways these can link up. Since it is assumed that only one of these will work, there is a 1/6 probability of success. The number of combinations is calculated by multiplying each factor in the series together thus:

No. of combinations for 2 components=1x2=2
No. of combinations for 3 components=1x2x3=6
No. of combinations for 4 components=1x2x3x4=24
No. of combinations for 5 components=1x2x3x4x5=120
No. of combinations for n components=1x2x3x....x n

The factorials become exceedingly large as the number of components increases:

6(components)=720
7=5040
8=40320
9=362880
10=3628800
100=10 to the 158th power
200=10 to the 375th power
1,000,000=10 to the 3000000th power
etc.

Consider, for example, an organism composed of only 100 integrated parts. Remember that each of these parts must fulfill a unique function in the organism and so there is only one way in which these 100 parts can be combined to function effectively. Since there are 10 to the 158th power different ways in which 100 parts can link up, the probability of a successful chance linkage is only one out of 10 to the 158th power (Note that this number is equal to a number written as 1 written followed by 158 zeroes). This number is too large to comprehend properly. To give a rough idea, however, one may note there are only approximately 10 to the 80th power electrons in the entire universe! Assuming that this represents the number of particles available to serve as potential components in our 100-part organism, this means that 10 to the 78th power such groups of 100 parts each could be formed at any one time. To be sure to get the one that works, however, there must be 10 to the 158th power such groups formed. It is, therefore very unlikely that one of the 10 to the 78th power actual groups would be the one needed. However, in event none of the first trial groups work, assume that they unlink, mix around, and then try again. Then, let them all try again, and again, and keep on trying, as long as possible. The universe is said by astronomers to be less than 30 billion years old. One can calculate that, in 30 billion years, there would be 10 to the 18th power seconds. Now let us assume that each of the above cycles of linking, unlinking and reshuffling, occupies only a billionth part of a second, so that a billion (10 to the 9th power) trials can be made each second. Thus the maximum number of trial combinations that could be made in all the universe in 30 billion years, even under such absurdly generous conditions, is still only 10 to the 78th x 10 to the 9th x 10 to the 18th, or 10 to the 105th combinations. There need to be 10 to the 158th such combinations, however, to be certain of getting the one which will work. Finally, then, the chance that one of these 10 to the 105th possible combinations will be the correct one is one chance in 10 to the 158th/10 to the 105th=1 in 10 to the 53rd. This is still an almost infinitesimally small number, actually one chance out of a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. For all practical purposes, there is no chance at all! And yet this is just for an organism of 100 parts. This is actually a simple organism, impossibly simple in fact. Research sponsored in part by NASA (for the purpose of enabling astronauts to recognize even the most rudimentary forms of life on other planets) has shown that the simplest type of protein molecule that could be said to be living is composed of a chain of at least 400 linked amino acids, and each amino acid is a specific combination of protons, electrons and neutrons. It is thus inconceivable that a living system could ever be formed by chance. Yet, if a Creator is excluded from the problem, there is no other way that at least the first living system could have been formed.


I could give you more math and stuff but I think you get my point. If you don't you are not alone. This stuff is hard to understand. But can't you see how it would be easier to believe that God created everything than to believe in that one chance that is so small that it practically doesn't exist?

You asked for proof of creation as strong as the proof that I gave against evolution. Well, part of it is that everything fits so well. For example all reliable geological timeclocks point to a time frame that is compatible with creation but that is not compatible with evolution. Also fossils are buried in a way that would go along with the flood. Less-mobile ocean creatures were buried first and a good many fish. Then mammals. Lastly would be men, because we are intelligent and could escape water for a little bit, and birds because they could fly to the highest points on the earth. All reliable science that is fact, creation can go along with or even predict it. Did you know that the Bible predicted both currents and the fact that the world is round? There is more evidence, but it is late and I will just post this for now. Cya. Oh and there is better grammar. lol.

It doesn't have to work perfectly, deformed people for example. They might not have an arm because it didn't work perfectly, evolution is a tinkerer. Not an engineer. why do you think humans are so imperfect? No engineer would design a human the way evolution did. Evolution did a pretty bang-up job. But there are flaws

your ignorance is beyond me.
humans are imperfect?? LOL our bodies work PERFECTLY just the way it is, you tell me some of these flaws. and a retina "installed backwards" does not count, you are basically telling God what he could or could not think of or do. the only reason why we know that it is backwards is because we have taken apart the eye and it is apparently backwards.

yes it does, a lot of the things about animals would have to have it all perfectly at once, or else it would be no use. not for every mutation, but for a lot of them that is the case. first take into account the fact that animals that have features that would be no use without another skill, then take into account all the millions of cells working perfectly on both features, or else how would it increase the species' ability to survive?

you still only address things that you think you have a fight against even if you dont, address the rest of my post including how evolution defies a natural law that random events cannot bring order, and the dinosaur video and everything. at least there was not any mocking in this post.

Plus3, i wan to hear from you, but also address everything in my post, and no mocking as i will just slam you with evidence.

I'm too bored and your too far gone. You don't understand what evidence is nor 99% of what you are talking about. Good luck not hurting yourself because you can't tell what's real.

i am through with you, Plus3, i will not reply to you. you are hopelessly bolted onto irrefutable facts that you will not let go of, you will miserably fail in the end. WAKE UP, you will regret it if you dont. stop saying things like "rip the band-aid off and you will thank me later," instead, show your evidence.

[
Wow. I'm calling up the editors of Nature and PlosOne as we speak to show them your irrefutable proof. Move over maxwel, eienstien and Darwin I just found someone who disproved the last 250 years of hundreds of thousands of independent scientist whose data was all in agreement before this unquestionable wisdom.

Lol. Just lol.

You need to understand what evolution is. It is the 100% opposite of chance. It is the extremely non-random trimming away of 100% random mutations. After the random useless parts are gone only 100% useful and purposeful parts remain. Thus completely non random. Each Change has many purposes and can find new purpose as what works does what dosent dosent. Slowly with time these changes pile up bit by bit. You just sound extremely ignorant with the nonsense above.

Evolution works in parallel not series. Each one evolves separately. There are over 1,000,000 types of insects alone not to mention the total number of all insects ever. Your stupid serial calculation is off by a couple of million quadrillion at a minimum.

Quit being so but hurt over a fable. Rip that band aid off now you'll thank me later.

[
Wow. I'm calling up the editors of Nature and PlosOne as we speak to show them your irrefutable proof. Move over maxwel, eienstien and Darwin I just found someone who disproved the last 250 years of hundreds of thousands of independent scientist whose data was all in agreement before this unquestionable wisdom.

Lol. Just lol.

You need to understand what evolution is. It is the 100% opposite of chance. It is the extremely non-random trimming away of 100% random mutations. After the random useless parts are gone only 100% useful and purposeful parts remain. Thus completely non random. Each Change has many purposes and can find new purpose as what works does what dosent dosent. Slowly with time these changes pile up bit by bit. You just sound extremely ignorant with the nonsense above.

Evolution works in parallel not series. Each one evolves separately. There are over 1,000,000 types of insects alone not to mention the total number of all insects ever. Your stupid serial calculation is off by a couple of million quadrillion at a minimum.

Quit being so but hurt over a fable. Rip that band aid off now you'll thank me later.

Maybe I did not make myself perfectly clear. I was talking about how the animals even came to exist. Evolution says that we came out of pond sludge. Those are the figure for that. Also evolution is not the trimming away of random mutations. It is the turning of one species into another. There is no fossil evidence for this. As for the last part in your little tirade, about how evolution works in parallel not series. I am talking about the probability that molecules would come together like this and form, let's say a certain kind of cockroach. I am talking about how the animals that evolved became animals in the first place. If you do not understand what I just said I will try and find an easier/less clumsy way of putting it.

The problem is simply whether a complex system, in which many components function unitedly together, and in which each component is uniquely necessary to the efficient functioning of the whole, could ever arise by random processes. The question is especially incisive when we deal with living systems. Inorganic relationships are often quite complex, living organisms are immensely more so. The evolution model(not theory, theories can be tested. That is the definition of a theory. Since neither can be tested, neither are theories; they are models; this is fact) nevertheless assumes all of these have arisen by chance and naturalism. Assume a "sea" of freely available components, each uniquely capable of performing a specific useful function. What is the probability that two or more of them can come together by chance to form an integrated functioning organism? As long as the number of components in the organism is small, the chance association in this way is a reasonable possibility. For example, consider two components, A and B. If they happen to link up in the form A-B, say, the combined system will work, but B-A will not work. Thus, there is one chance out of two that these two components will combine into a functioning system. That is, there is a 1/2 probability of "success." If there are three components,-A,B, and C- there are six possible ways these can link up. Since it is assumed that only one of these will work, there is a 1/6 probability of success. The number of combinations is calculated by multiplying each factor in the series together thus:

No. of combinations for 2 components=1x2=2
No. of combinations for 3 components=1x2x3=6
No. of combinations for 4 components=1x2x3x4=24
No. of combinations for 5 components=1x2x3x4x5=120
No. of combinations for n components=1x2x3x....x n

The factorials become exceedingly large as the number of components increases:

6(components)=720
7=5040
8=40320
9=362880
10=3628800
100=10 to the 158th power
200=10 to the 375th power
1,000,000=10 to the 3000000th power
etc.

Consider, for example, an organism composed of only 100 integrated parts. Remember that each of these parts must fulfill a unique function in the organism and so there is only one way in which these 100 parts can be combined to function effectively. Since there are 10 to the 158th power different ways in which 100 parts can link up, the probability of a successful chance linkage is only one out of 10 to the 158th power (Note that this number is equal to a number written as 1 written followed by 158 zeroes). This number is too large to comprehend properly. To give a rough idea, however, one may note there are only approximately 10 to the 80th power electrons in the entire universe! Assuming that this represents the number of particles available to serve as potential components in our 100-part organism, this means that 10 to the 78th power such groups of 100 parts each could be formed at any one time. To be sure to get the one that works, however, there must be 10 to the 158th power such groups formed. It is, therefore very unlikely that one of the 10 to the 78th power actual groups would be the one needed. However, in event none of the first trial groups work, assume that they unlink, mix around, and then try again. Then, let them all try again, and again, and keep on trying, as long as possible. The universe is said by astronomers to be less than 30 billion years old. One can calculate that, in 30 billion years, there would be 10 to the 18th power seconds. Now let us assume that each of the above cycles of linking, unlinking and reshuffling, occupies only a billionth part of a second, so that a billion (10 to the 9th power) trials can be made each second. Thus the maximum number of trial combinations that could be made in all the universe in 30 billion years, even under such absurdly generous conditions, is still only 10 to the 78th x 10 to the 9th x 10 to the 18th, or 10 to the 105th combinations. There need to be 10 to the 158th such combinations, however, to be certain of getting the one which will work. Finally, then, the chance that one of these 10 to the 105th possible combinations will be the correct one is one chance in 10 to the 158th/10 to the 105th=1 in 10 to the 53rd. This is still an almost infinitesimally small number, actually one chance out of a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. For all practical purposes, there is no chance at all! And yet this is just for an organism of 100 parts. This is actually a simple organism, impossibly simple in fact. Research sponsored in part by NASA (for the purpose of enabling astronauts to recognize even the most rudimentary forms of life on other planets) has shown that the simplest type of protein molecule that could be said to be living is composed of a chain of at least 400 linked amino acids, and each amino acid is a specific combination of protons, electrons and neutrons. It is thus inconceivable that a living system could ever be formed by chance. Yet, if a Creator is excluded from the problem, there is no other way that at least the first living system could have been formed.