I suppose it does depend on how you look at it. My line of thoughts regarding this is strictly logical/objective. Perfect = flawless. Humans = flawed. Therefore, humans ≠ perfect.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 youHumans are not perfect. Far from it.It might be a little sketchy. I should warn you that this is a very long post.
The changes observed due to evolution were never considered to have a high probability to occur. There is not a plan but rather a random change or series of changes that allows a species to survive and pass on their DNA. These changes do in fact have an extremely low chance of occurring. This would be great math but you are basing it on uncertain constants. Unknown time lapses, quantities, etc. Again, similar to the counter-argument for evolution.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.
Quoted from Henry Morris' Scientific Creationism. Sorry for any confusion
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?
Probability is easy, lol. Unless, of course, you are studying quantum mechanics. Believe me, that is difficult. Anyways, I do see how it would be more easy to believe in God. I believe I made that point earlier in the topic. However, I do not base my perception of life on one principle so even when evolution seems less possible to believe in than creationism, I think back to the general reasons I do not trust religion and then I think of other possibilities. One of the only problems I really see is when it seems like people would choose to believe in God but then cease to continue investigating other possibilities.
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.
I understand that general notion where biology is so mechanically sound that it could not have simply just occurred spontaneously. However, that seems so closed in my opinion. Again, you may believe that idea but do not stop there and give up. I would again like to bring up that whilst that is fair logic, I feel the need to think in terms of physical evidence and objective conclusions.
I addressed the fossil/flood idea in the above post and I need to gather some more info regarding what the bible specifically predicted unless you would like to quote it. This moment is one of the few times I will actually accept scripture as evidence, lol.
