|
Everyone knows that Brandi and I have every reason to despise the "church" but the reality is neither creation nor evolution can be "proven" but for all those who believe that evolution is based and proven in science you obviously do not keep up on recent scientific theory. I have no opinion on where we came from but both sides need to agree that both views are equally improbable...
The argument from probability that life could not form by natural processes but must have been created is acknowledged by evolutionists as a strong argument.
The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ?simple? cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 10 to 57800 power. This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros. It would take 11 full pages of magazine type to print this number. To try to put this in perspective, there are about 10 to the 80th power (a number with 80 zeros) electrons in the universe. Even if every electron in our universe were another universe the same size as ours that would ?only? amount to 10160 electrons.
These numbers defy our ability to comprehend their size. Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, has used analogies to try to convey the immensity of the problem. For example, Hoyle said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik?s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time?and this is the chance of getting only one of the 400 or more proteins of the hypothetical minimum cell proposed by the evolutionists (real world ?simple? bacteria have about 2,000 proteins and are incredibly complex). As Hoyle points out, the program of the cell, encoded on the DNA, is also needed. In other words, life by natural (random) processes has the same scientific probability of life by creation......meaning neither makes sense
|