Skip to main content
news

Re: Queen mother (of Britai...

Joy
Google Google
SubjectRe: Queen mother (of Britain) has died
FromJoy
Date2002-04-10 20:06 (2002-04-10 11:06)
Message-ID<29ff3ad6.0204101006.17fdefeb@posting.google.com>
Client
Newsgroupsalt.fan.tolkien
Followspaulh
FollowupsDonald Shepherd (7h & 53m) > Joy
paulh <paulh@fahncahn.com>wrote:

Joy
It has been calculated that the odds of a spontaneous formation of even a small protein, given *100 billion years* (10 to 20 times greater than the approximated age of the earth) is less than 1 to 10 to the 60th.

paulh
Who says that? How can you prove that? How is that even calculated?

AJ White, Ph.D in Chemistry, Research Fellow at Edward Davies Chemical Laboratories, Aberystwyth... actually he calculated it to 1:10 to the 67th, and I even rounded it *down*... as for *how* he got those figures... beats me :)

Joy
That's why I said the probability of evolution was slim.

paulh
But you're assumption is always based on either a/ you feel it seems unlikely

Aren't "unlikely" and "the probability is slim" basically the same? Yes, I assume that the probability of evolution is slim... because it seems unlikely... <looks confused>

b/ it happend by chance.

But materialist evolutionists *do* believe that it happened "by chance". I was led to believe that the concept that life actually strove and spurred itself on toward improved efficiency was another discussion altogether and related to some sort of philosophical "universal consciousness" thing, rather than the strictly materialist view on evolution.

One.. a billion years is a long time...very long. I don't know people can calculate (mentally) the odds ofthings happening over this sort of time frame.

I'm a child of the Calculator Generation. I can barely calculate my own change at the store... Maybe the mathematicians can? :)

Two.. being complex is not proof its impossible. Its evidence it may have taken a long long time.

That's why I said I believed the *probability* of it happening to be small. Plus, there is simply no proof for the leap from molecule to cell. Even evolutionists admit this.

"However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area, all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet? We simply wish to point out the fact that there is no scientific evidence." --David E. Green and Robert F. Goldberger (both evolutionists), _Molecular Insights Into the Living Process_.

"?there are very few empirical facts of direct relevance and perhaps no facts relating to the actual transition from organic material to material that can even remotely be described as living. ?The timescale [the supposed 5 billion year old age of Earth] is grossly inadequate and the information content that is needed to produce life is so vast that it is impossible to actually arrive at that final step on Earth?" --N. Chandra Wickramasinghe (also an evolutionist... with friends like these... :)), in Vol. 325 of _Philosophical Transcripts of the Royal Society of London_

(Watch me quote with no actual understanding! Haha! But I've discovered that AFT is big on quoting...) So here's another.

"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate.?It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect? higher intelligences? even to the limit of God. ?such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific." --Sir Fred Hoyle, mathematician, cosmologist, astronomer, from _Evolution from Space_, in the set-up for his Spawn from Space theory.

Francis Crick (the co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix, and Nobel Prize winner, I think) said that there is virtually no chance that the first life could have spontaneously generated from Earth's chemistry... He theorizes that we originate from cells planted here by a spacecraft (I'm not joking, and hey, anything's possible.)

Hmm, seems like the Spawn From Space theory is big too. Why doesn't anyone take it *seriously*, instead of arguing about the varying degrees of unlikeliness of evolution?

(Whoa, this is one of my longest posts ever. And it's totally off topic! I rule!)

Google
Donald Shepherd (7h & 53m) > Joy