- Joined
- May 25, 2011
- Messages
- 854
Perhaps the first move should consist of an understanding of the word likely?
1.
probably or apparently destined (usually followed by an infinitive): something not likely to happen.
2.
seeming like truth, fact, or certainty; reasonably to be believed or expected; believable: a likely story.
3.
seeming to fulfill requirements or expectations; apparently suitable: a likely place for a restaurant.
4.
showing promise of achievement or excellence; promising: a fine, likely young man.
The above definitions are straight from Dictionary.com.
As I understand it, the use of the word likely (as you've used it) implies that the one in a billion chance is somehow reasonably to be expected. I suspect you'd be in a very small minority of people who think the chance of something happening once in a billion opportunities is likely to happen. Most - and I'm assuming here - would probably consider such odds to be very unlikely, if not almost impossible.
It is calculated that an individual's chance of being struck by lightening is approximately 1 in 280,000. I'd guess that the average person doesn't consider it likely that he/she will be struck by lightening: yet the odds of that happening are roughly 3,571 times greater than the odds of something happening that only happens once every billion opportunities.
Nor can we say that something is more likely to happen (given enough opportunities) if the odds against it happening remain the same (one billion to one).
What can be said (assuming billions of opportunities and odds remaining at one billion to one) is that it could be expected that the something will happen repeatedly in all those billions of opportunities. But that something would still remain very unlikely (10 in 10 billion is no more/less likely than 1 in 1 billion).
Suppose I were to create a chart, representing the length of time earth has been around, and in that chart I had one square for each second of earth's existence. Let us assume that the earth is 6.5 billion years old. It is a relatively simple matter to figure (roughly) the number of seconds in that 6.5 billion years: (205,000,000,000,000,000 seconds - or 205 quadrillion seconds have passed).
Let us also assume that you are now 80 years of age and that I have included, amongst those 205 quadrillion squares, 2.5 billion red squares which represent your age in seconds. Now let us suppose I am blind and tasked with throwing a dart, at all those squares, and hitting one of the red squares (representing your time on earth). (Let us also assume that I am capable of hitting one of the 205 quadrillion squares).
The odds of my hitting one of the 2.5 billion red squares is roughly 1 in 1.2 billion attempts.
That is a big number, but one that most people can sort of understand - still the average person would attribute my chance of success to be somewhere near zero.
Now if I were tasked with hitting a specific red square (by chance only) my odds of success jump to 1 in 205 quadrillion (15 zero's behind the 205).
That is a huge number; so large that the average human can't really comprehend it.
And yet that number equates to excellent odds when compared to the odds, given by statisticians, against evolution (as Darwin proclaimed it) actually taking place.
Remember the 15 zero's mentioned just above?
They're important to remember because we're going to talk about numbers that just cannot be understood by most humans.
But first we must understand what we're dealing with here: the belief that one life-form can transform into a completely different life-form - due to outside influences which drive those transformational forces.
We're not talking about a life-form's ability to adapt within specific parameters to meet the changes constantly bombarding them. We're talking about the belief that a lizard can become a bird (or whatever).
The calculated odds against evolution, as figured by science/math are: 1 in 10 (with 40,000 zero's behind the 10). That's a 10 with 40,000 zero's behind it!!!
Even if we assume that the mathematician(s) got it wrong by a factor of a billion - it is still a number that is so big, so impossible, that a reasonable person has to admit that the odds (of evolution being a reality) are zero.
Let's try to understand how big of a number a 10 followed by 40,000 zero's really is.
If the earth were that old, it would be 1.5 X 10 (with 39,990 zeros behind it) times older than science tells us it is (6.5 billions years old).
For comparison's sake, one vigintillion is a number with 63 zero's behind it and the number one trillion has only 12 zero's behind it.
So how did the mathematicians come up with such a gigantic number?
I'm not going to pretend that I know, nor will I pretend that I really understand such a large number.
What I can do is make a guesstimate of how such a number came about.
First we must understand that all life is under constant pressure; be it weather extremes, natural disasters, disease, predation, the need for food, shelter, and water, or competition with others. Every second of every single day is a challenge of one sort or another.
There must be a reasonable estimation of the amount of time that there has been life on the earth. That period of time would have to be broken down to specific increments (say seconds) to account for the fact that every single life that has ever lived (on earth) was subjected to constant pressures during the course of that life (and should therefore be in the process of changing constantly - if evolution/Darwinism is correct).
There must also be a reasonable estimate of the total number of different life-forms that have ever lived on planet earth. Then there must be a reasonable estimate of the total numbers of life (not just forms of life, but individual lives) that have ever existed on planet earth.
I haven't bothered to make the attempt of finding out how many individual lives, currently alive, there are on earth, but I would guess the number is incredibly large. (Any living thing counts - plants, insects, animals, fish, bacteria... everything)
The total number of lives ever lived, on earth, would have to be truly staggering; especially since we know that most of those lives were not preserved as fossils (so it is probable that we don't begin to understand the real numbers of lives lived).
There must also be a means of accounting for the fact that nearly all mutations are either harmful or not beneficial to the host.
Likewise, there must be an accounting for the fact that there are numerous species which are recognized as having no significant changes over hundreds of millions of years.
Another important consideration is the matter of reproduction. A sudden, dramatic change is probably going to leave that lone life-form incapable of reproducing. Yet sudden dramatic changes are absolutely necessary if those changes are a response to dramatic outside forces. A subtle change is just as likely to be bred out over time (as it is to be passed on) and such changes wouldn't help at all when the species is suddenly confronted with a dramatic outside force. We must also consider the fact that most life-forms find different to be something that is shunned (when it comes to mating).
What is lacking in the fossil record must be considered as well - for if evolution (Darwinism) is indeed actual fact, the fossil record should demonstrate that by showing us a plethora of transitional life forms that were constantly changing to adapt to their surroundings. It can't be a small number of fossils that we surmise could possibly (maybe - just maybe) show the dramatic changes that would have to be a constant. (IOW - if evolution/Darwinism is factual, transitional life-forms would be the norm and the normal would be the unusual, or missing)
Without doubt, I have missed some of the vital considerations necessary for the calculations made. But, the considerations I have noted would give an extremely large number (against evolution).
When I first saw this particular (evolution vs creationism) thread my gut told me that it would be best if I simply ignored it. Still, the OP asked for opinions and I thought maybe, just maybe, opinions could be offered without others demanding proof that they themselves fail to offer.
This isn't my first rodeo; I've been down this road numerous times (on various political forums I frequent) and I can't help but noticing a disturbing trend: evidence is frequently demanded from those who doubt (or don't believe in) evolution, but seldom (or never) offered in support of evolution.
That is disturbing for numerous reasons, but it is especially disturbing due to the fact that evolution is supposedly science. As such, those who believe in evolution should approach the subject in a manner that befits real science. These questions ought to have been asked (of evolution) long before the choice is made (to believe in evolution).
Real science demands doubt.
Real science welcomes doubt and explores it deeply. It does not hide behind demands for proof of the doubt; it makes every possible attempt to prove that the doubt is correct. Only after it fails to prove that the doubt is correct (or even possible) does real science declare a conclusion to be factual.
If we don't know enough about our universe to state something is improbable or impossible, then we certainly don't know enough about it to state that something is probable or even possible.
I happen to agree: basing one's beliefs on flawed calculations is problematic. In fact it is unscientific (to say the least). But it does provide for the makings of a quasi-religion.
This will be my last reply with regards to this thread/topic. I've voiced my opinion on this subject and I thank those of you who have agreed that a differing opinion is allowed to go unchallenged.
Someone (here on the forum) has a tagline that reads something along these lines:
If everyone thinks the same, someone isn't thinking.
I really like that tagline.
It makes me think.
I hope it does the same for you and I hope that all the differing opinions (offered here) make you think as well.
Real science demands it.
