When does mathematical improbability cross the line into absurdity? Like complex organisms evolving?

Even giving pseudo scientific evolutionists the benefit of the doubt on the existence of the material, is 4.6 billion years really enough to see the world we have develop on its own through natural selection.

Do you really understand the size of the numbers it takes to calculate the probablility of this?

If you take an OJECTIVE look at the mathematical probabilities, then you see the absurdity of the Evolutionary argument.

If I ever had my doubts about Genesis, the Math killed them.

13 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The single greatest piece of evidence in favor of evolution is the fact that its critics have to lie and ignore over 100 years of science to make their argument.

    The sad thing is that you truly don't understand either the science or statistics. People making your specious argument always have to first narrow their mind to assume Earth is the only planet where this process might have taken place. Plug one additional number into the calculation which is the number of planets just in our galaxy where similar condition exist and you come up with a near certainty that life would have occurred on multiple planets.

    It's always fascinating to see the same narrow minded approach taken by critics of the big bang, origin of life and evolution.

  • 1 decade ago

    It makes no sense at all. How a "simple" cell formed in the ocean and made everything there is. There is no simple cell, a human cell is so complex, it isn't even fully mapped out yet. Just one part missing, or out of place, and the cell is worthless. That kills evolution right there. The cell can't possible "evolve" over time.

    For the person about rabbits and cud...

    Refection is a process whereby rabbits pass pellets of partially digested food, which they chew on (along with the waste material) in order to give their stomachs another go at getting the nutrients out. It is not just "dung" that the rabbits are eating, which is probably why the Hebrew word for "dung" was not used here.

    Contrast this with what cows and some other animals do, rumination, which is what we moderns call "chewing the cud." They regurgiate partially digested food in little clumps called cuds, and chew it a little more after while mixing it with saliva.

    So then: partially digested food is a common element here. The Hebrew word simply refers to any partially digested food -- the process is not the issue, just the object.

  • jxt299
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Genesis makes it very clear that the world and the universe were created 6,000 years ago. Do you believe that? Science says the universe was created about 14.5 billion years ago, and the Earth about 4.5 billion years ago, and that is PLENTY of time for life to evolve. Do you put gas in your car? Its 150 million years old! How can you say you believe the world is only 6,000 years old then put stuff science says is 150 million years old in your car? Did you ever read "1984" by George Orwell? It hit on the concept of doublethink, wherein people totally accept two totally incompatible thought systems simultaneously, and that is what you are doing. So either get rid of your car and get a donkey like the Bible says or get real about accepting reality as science has shown it to be.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    You're no mathematician and certainly no statistician. Nor are you at all well-informed regarding the evolution of complex organisms. If you were, you'd realize your argument dies on the fact that such evolution is occurring today, at this very moment, and will continue into the foreseeable future.

    Instead of wasting what appears to be considerable talent arguing the unarguable, why don't you turn your efforts to helping us do something positive to reverse the real threat to the survival of the human race - global warming?

    By the way - you might tell the answerer calling himself Massimo Consigliare that I raised rabbits for years, and they do indeed chew their cuds.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It all depends upon whether you postulate a hidden hand guiding evolution, doesn't it? Even a creationist has got to come up with some plausible process which describes how we came to be here, or else postulate a hand coming down out of the sky to plant the first man and woman on earth. I imagine that the latter would be a bit much even for them.

    GREEN93LX (below)

    How does the admittedly unsolved puzzle of abio-genesis disprove evolution?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Sorry to disabuse you, but evolution is a proven fact (proof details are available on request). The only potentially improbable facet of the process is the arising of life in the first instance; nevertheless, if the probability of this happening on a particular planet is only one in a quadrillion, that still leaves thousands of planets on which it probably occurred.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I'll try to answer all of your questions.

    When does mathematical....cross? I don't know what the set limit is.

    Is 4.6 billion years really enough time? That seems pretty obvious to most of us.

    Do I REALLY (my own emphasis) understand the numbers....? Not completely, but I rely on those who do have the proper understanding.

  • 1 decade ago

    When we're told that rabbits chew their cud and that bats are birds and whales are fish.....

    I guess it's all in your Bible....

    So a God that poofed us all into existence is what you may call a "more plausible argument" against Evolution?????

    PS: You have abso-effing-lutely no idea whatsoever about what "mathematical probability" is......and that very term is a pleonasm, FYI...

  • 1 decade ago

    It's a good thing we have an infinite amount of numbers then. Your argument makes no sense.

  • 1 decade ago

    yeah its easier to just not think and just believe some old stories that other people made up. I mean the odds are better, they are right or they are wrong.. mathematically speaking, why think, its just not worth it

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.