Mathematics is science and proves that evolution is not possible. For example, the 26 letters of the alphabet can be arranged in 4.0329 x 10 to the 26th power, or 403,290,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 combinations. The odds of the proper sequence of letters being laid out at random, are 1 in 2.4796 x 10 to the -27th power or .00000000000000000000000000024796. Taking five minutes for each attempt it would take 3,836,500,000,000,000,000,000 years to try them all.
Yet the scientists would have us believe that living organisms which are more complex than 26 components evolved by chance. Single cell bacteria have about 3 million nucleotides in their DNA. Mathematics show this to be impossible.
2007-05-04 08:56:50 · 40 answers · asked by Mark 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Paul - Mathematics is certainly a science in the broad sense of "systematic and formulated knowledge", but most people use "science" to refer only to the natural sciences.
2007-05-04 09:03:21 · update #1
Mel - Now come one...there's no reason to get personal. Can't you just have a good healthy debate/conversation with getting personal and using patronizing sarcasm to cover up your lack of knowledge on the subject?
2007-05-04 09:19:17 · update #2
You cannot prove God with numbers, you can however see his hand in nature (evolution) and the constancy and order of the universe. And the hearts and lives he changes. Such high odds defy possibility. I am a creationist, and I know that I am not a chance pond scum baby.
Mathematicians could not calculate the number or the odds of Gods perfection, I feel sorry for them. The only number they need is 1. One God, 1 creation.
2007-05-04 09:02:55 · answer #1 · answered by great gig in the sky 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
It is a logical fallacy to think that someone can prove that god does not exist. The same way one can not prove that unicorns don't exist. You can NOT prove a negative. It is logically impossible. The burden of proof is on those who make the claim of something existing. The reason I don't believe in god is because I've tried praying and it didn't work, and the idea of some supreme overlord just seems contrived. I the default position is to be a skeptic until their is sufficient evidence to support the claim of a god. I don't claim to know 100 percent that their isn't some kind of creator being but I am only as sure as there are no such thing as unicorns.
2016-05-20 07:44:05 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's assuming that it's random. There is evidence that organic material that came from space helped things along. The earth is constantly being pelted by organic materials. This makes the time period unimportant, since this organic materials could have taken however long to be created.
Your arguement also assumes that there is only organic material that will create a living organism.
Your arguement also assumes that each attempt would take five minutes. Why you picked five minutes I don't know. The earth is a really big place. and there more by many many more attempts than one in a minute.
Also you are assuming that the "correct" sequence is the last one possible. Using probiblity the chances are much better.
2007-05-04 09:20:21 · answer #3 · answered by theFo0t 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Although I do not believe in evolution you are in error. Mathematics does not disprove evolution. It only states that it is unlikely.
If something has an odds of happening of 1: 1,000,000,000,000 it doesn't mean that 999,999,999,999 chances have to go by in order for the desired outcome to occur. It could happen on the 500,000th time, the 50th time or even the first time.
Again, although I do not believe in evolution I do think it is important to keep an open mind to explainations for things. Isn't that what being a scientist is all about? Besides, if I dismissed an argument for a theory out of hand simply because I dissagreed with the theory I would be no better than the evolutionists.
2007-05-04 09:04:26 · answer #4 · answered by Bud 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
> Mathematics is science
Mathematics is not a science, and it is obvious that you have no clue as to what a science is.
According to your ridiculous logic, you cannot exist. Do you know what the odds are that out of the trillions of sperm that your father created in his life that the precise one to create you would precisely meet the one in a thousand eggs that your mother produced. Next, multiply that by the number of men in the world, since your mother need not have selected your father. Now, take that to the power of 10,000, or however many generations that you think that mankind has been around. The resulting number is so large that it is clearly impossible that you exist.
2007-05-04 09:22:41 · answer #5 · answered by Fred 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Typical brain dead analysis. If there were only one cell trying each combination you are correct. But with the entire earth as a giant biological soup the numbers of combinations going on is beyond the possibilities of the human mind to count or conceive. Once there are a few different combinations then they can combine with each other going up exponentially. Then with each combination it continues exponentially. For a first grade math problem you are correct. For thinking beyond first grade math it works out.
2007-05-04 09:05:37 · answer #6 · answered by bocasbeachbum 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Does basic math prove that every lottery draw in history has been rigged? The chance of any specific combination of six numbers is extremely small, so by your logic the lottery cannot have a result by random chance.
And evolution has very little to do with random chance anyway. But of course you know that, don't you?
2007-05-04 09:10:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
You're just trying so hard aren't you <<
Once again, you're leaving out all other essential factors of your "equation" such as the environment & interspecies competition.
Once again, there's nothing here to refute but illogical garbage.
I'm almost sensing desperation from you. Having a little crisis perhaps?
2007-05-04 09:12:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Scientists HAVE made the building blocks of life from nothing. Also, evolution does not happen randomly. You are comparing evolution and statistics wrong.
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
A better comparison is you have 100 dice. You want to get all 100 to be "6"s. So you throw all 100 dice. The chances of all of them being 6s is very high, but inevitably some will be 6s. You keep these 6s and throw all the other dice again. You keep repeating until all the dice show 6. That is how evolution works.
2007-05-04 09:06:20 · answer #9 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
1. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
2. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
3. The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
4. The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
2007-05-04 09:05:04 · answer #10 · answered by eldad9 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋