Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [apologetics and theology] Re: A Deck of Cards disproves Evolution

Expand Messages
  • M Jefferson
    First let us define Evolution. Evolution is a process that happens every day and is visible and tangible. Evolution is a process in which something passes by
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 30, 2010
      First let us define Evolution. Evolution is a process that happens every day and is visible and tangible. Evolution is a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage, usually a more advanced state. Evolutionary observations are made in many aspects of nature. But Darwinism is very different from Evolution. If we want to disprove evolution, we have already failed. If we want to disprove Darwinism, our chances are much much better because it has at its core a focus on natural selection, which is holds about as much water as sieve. But if we are also to examine the concept of the origins of life on earth, then that is a whole other conversation that will included chemistry and not just naturalists observations.

      MJ





      ________________________________
      From: "Bartlett, Paul A (DoE)" <paul.bartlett@...>
      To: "apologetics@yahoogroups.com" <apologetics@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wed, June 30, 2010 11:43:28 PM
      Subject: RE: [apologetics and theology] Re: A Deck of Cards disproves Evolution


      Thankyou Bill,

      "Specified complexity is different from mere complexity." Yes, that is exactly my point. You must define the specified complexity before allowing chance to generate it. But the chance of drawing the cards in the order 1,2,3,4,5 is the same as drawing the cards in the order 9,8,7,6,5 or even 7,3,5,4,9,2. The chance of drawing any combination of cards is individually small but all added together the chance of drawing the cards is 1 (100%).

      Our genetic state is the state that we are in currently. The chance of anything else evolving to our same genetic state is infinitesimally small. But there are countless viable genetic states that evolution could form.

      It is easy to marvel at drawing cards 1h,2h,3h,4h,5h from a deck of cards but the same person would be equally impressed with 1d,2d,3d,4d,5d or clubs or spades. So the chance of being impressed has instantly quadrupled. The probability of life needs to be calculated as finding any possible viable organism, not just the probability of recreating what we currently have.

      Paul

      From: apologetics@yahoogroups.com [mailto:apologetics@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of B1E1Nugent@...
      Sent: Thursday, 1 July 2010 1:09 PM
      To: apologetics@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [apologetics and theology] Re: A Deck of Cards disproves Evolution

      Paul,

      A deck of cards in straight flush is specified complexity, i.e. it
      conforms to an order, numerical order, independent of the deck.

      Every shuffled deck has complexity.

      Specified complexity is different from mere complexity.

      Bill N

      In a message dated 6/30/2010 7:30:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
      paul.bartlett@...<mailto:paul.bartlett%40education.tas.gov.au> writes:

      This argument always concerns me. The problem that I have with it is that
      it is just like saying that if I picked up a desk of cards and dealt two
      cards: say the Four of Spades and the Jack of Hearts then I could say "wow
      what were the chances of drawing those two cards (1 in 2652)". In reality I
      could say the same thing about whatever two cards I drew.

      The problem is that you cannot define the probability of an event until
      you define what the event is and in our case the event is our current state
      and therefore the probability is 1 in 1. If we define our current state as
      the probability that we are trying to define and then find exactly the same
      species somewhere else that did not have a common species descendant then
      you can argue that the chance that two would be the same is infinitesimally
      small.

      We cannot even argue that our current state is biologically perfect
      (straight flush). Disabilities and disease counter that argument. It is more like
      two pair.

      I am very interested in this topic and what other people have to say about
      it. Please chip in.

      Paul

      --- In apologetics@yahoogroups.com<mailto:apologetics%40yahoogroups.com>, B1E1Nugent@... wrote:
      >
      > Hi guys & gals,
      >
      > Can you believe that a deck of cards can be used to disprove evolution?
      >
      >
      > You're out for a walk and happen to find a deck of playing cards by the

      > side of the path. You flip through the cards and notice that they're
      all in
      > numerical order by suit. In other words the diamonds are in order from 2

      > through 10 and Jack to Ace and the same is true for the other three
      suits. You
      > have in your hands a deck of cards arranged in straight flush in all
      four
      > suits.
      >
      > You say to yourself "What an amazing coincidence, someone shuffled a
      deck
      > and the cards all came out in perfect flush order." In fact you are so
      > amazed that when you get home you try and calculate the odds of getting
      a 52
      > card straight flush by shuffling a deck of cards over and over.
      >
      > What is the chance that the first card in a newly shuffled deck comes
      out
      > to be the 2 of diamonds? That's easy, it's 1 in 52. And once you've
      gotten
      > that card to come up first what's the chance of the second card being
      the 3
      > of diamonds? That too is easy, it's 1 in 51. The chance of getting just
      > the first two cards in the right order would be 1 in 52 x 51 which
      would
      > equal 1 in 2,652.
      >
      > You then realize that the number of possible combinations of 52 cards
      is
      > expressed by what your math teacher called "factorial 52" which is 52 x
      51 x
      > 50 x 49 x 48 x 47 x 46 . . . x 3 x 2 x 1. You get out your calculator
      and
      > find that factorial 52 is equal to a sum greater than 8.07 x 10 to the
      67th
      > power! Think about how huge that number is. Scientists have estimated
      that
      > the number of atoms in the Milky Way Galaxy is only 1 x 10 to the 65th
      > power. The number of possible combinations of cards in an ordinary 52
      card
      > deck is nearly a thousand times greater than the number of atoms in the
      Milky
      > Way Galaxy!
      >
      > Now let's see if we can get a 52 card straight flush by randomly
      shuffling
      > decks of cards. If we were to put all six and a half billion people on
      > earth to work shuffling decks of cards and they shuffled the card decks
      at the
      > rate of one million decks per second and we employed them for fifteen
      > billion years you would have less than a tenth of one percent chance of
      coming
      > up with a 52 card straight flush in any of those decks at the end of
      fifteen
      > billion years!!!
      >
      > You then come to the conclusion that the straight flush deck of cards
      you
      > found was arranged not by chance but by a human being or some other
      > intelligent designer who deliberately arranged the cards in that order.
      >
      > What does this little card deck example have to do with evolution? We
      can
      > use it to illustrate the probability of the occurrence of one small
      step in
      > evolution.
      >
      > The alleged mechanism of evolution is genetic mutation. Mutations are
      > copying errors in the DNA. The DNA molecule is composed of millions of
      > nucleotide base pairs arranged in an exact orderly sequence. You can
      think of DNA
      > as a deck of cards and the base pairs as the individual cards in the
      deck.
      >
      > A mutation rearranges or shuffles some of the base pairs. If the
      > mutational shuffling garbles or disorganizes the design information in
      the DNA, the
      > offspring will be deformed or even die.
      >
      > Evolutionists claim that random mutations of the nucleotide base pairs
      in
      > the DNA of living organisms can cause advantageous changes in body
      > structure. Evolutionists also claim that the accumulation of such
      changes has
      > caused new species and even new orders and new phyla of living
      organisms to
      > form. However, even evolutionists acknowledge that the overwhelming
      majority of
      > mutations are harmful or neutral.
      >
      > Let's examine the odds of the probability of unguided evolution
      producing
      > a humble ordinary woodpecker. The woodpecker is different from other
      birds
      > in that it has an extra heavy duty beak, a very thick skull, thick
      > cartilage behind the beak to act as shock absorber, an extra long
      tongue and
      > incredibly . . . a flap of skin around the top of the head to act as a
      storage
      > pouch for the long tongue!
      >
      > The evolutionist says that all those unique features of the woodpecker
      > evolved from an ordinary bird by the accumulation of random
      rearrangements of
      > DNA base pairs. (I would point out that the number of base pairs that
      would
      > have needed to be rearranged would likely have been a lot larger than
      52
      > if you get my drift!)
      >
      > Furthermore, the list of unique woodpecker features (long tongue,
      storage
      > pouch, heavy duty beak, thick skull, etc.) had to evolve in tandem. In
      > other words if an ordinary bird got a mutation giving it a long tongue
      but no
      > storage pouch in which to store the tongue, that would not be
      advantageous!
      > That bird and its mutation would die out from the gene pool.
      >
      > The ordinary bird on its way to evolve into a woodpecker would have to
      > have an incredibly large favorable mutation to give it several
      woodpecker
      > features all at once.
      >
      > Human DNA contains more than a billion base pairs. If we suppose that a
      > bird has just half that number or 500 million base pairs, how many of
      those
      > base pairs would have to be rearranged in precise orderly sequence to
      > redesign the skull, beak, tongue and add a tongue storage pouch to make
      an even
      > remotely functioning woodpecker? I would conservatively estimate that
      about
      > 52,000 base pairs would have to be precisely rearranged.
      >
      > We saw in our card deck illustration the incredibly large number of
      > possible sequences of just 52 cards. How can we even begin to calculate
      the
      > number of possible sequences of 52,000 base pairs? Also consider that
      genetic
      > mutations are rare and a mutation with even one base pair out of place
      can
      > not only be harmful but even be fatal.
      >
      > Any objective probability analysis would show that an unguided random
      > shuffling of 52,000 base pairs needed to redesign a bird skull would
      have such
      > a low probability of success that it would be rendered absurd.
      > Evolutionists usually attempt to rebut such a statement by saying that
      such a change
      > would not happen with one large mutation. They would claim that it
      would
      > require many smaller mutations in a step by step incremental way
      involving
      > relatively few base pairs in each step.
      >
      > An evolutionist would probably say that a mutation that shuffled just
      52
      > base pairs would be a small mutation. The evolutionist could say that a
      > series of 1,000 mutations, each involving about 52 base pairs would be
      > sufficient to redesign a bird's skull.
      >
      > I would counter that even if each mutation rearranged only 52 base
      pairs
      > in each of 1,000 small mutational steps to accumulate to a total of
      52,000
      > precisely rearranged base pairs it would still be an absurdly low
      > probability for random mutations to turn a sparrow into a woodpecker.
      Our card deck
      > illustration above shows the outrageously huge number of possible
      sequences
      > of just 52 base pairs. Imagine the odds of precisely rearranging 52
      > different base pairs in each of 1,000 mutations!
      >
      > This shows that a woodpecker or any complex life form could not evolve
      by
      > random processes in a trillion years!!! This is just one of the many
      > glaring flaws in the theory of evolution.
      >
      > Evolution is the origins myth of atheistic materialism. It is taught in
      > our taxpayer funded schools. Evolution is taught as an "unguided,"
      therefore
      > atheistic process. This promotes atheism and undermines the faith of
      school
      > children. It is high time that children are taught not only the flaws
      of
      > evolution but also the necessity of the Creator.*
      >
      > *Some material in the above post is adapted from a blog by "Jim in
      > Vermont" of the "evolution vs intelligent design" debate group at
      yahoogroups.com.
      > - Bill in NY
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >

      ------------------------------------

      Brought to you by Theologically Correct dot Com Ministries.
      http://theologicallycorrect.com
      1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3 - Resources for Christian Living for the Whole Life
      of the BelieverYahoo! Groups Links

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ________________________________
      CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
      The information in this transmission may be confidential and/or protected by legal professional privilege, and is intended only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you are not such a person, you are warned that any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised. If you have received the transmission in error, please immediately contact this office by telephone, fax or email, to inform us of the error and to enable arrangements to be made for the destruction of the transmission, or its return at our cost. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • IW
      Pada tanggal Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:54:44 EDT, B1E1Nugent@aol.com menulis email dengan judul ([apologetics and theology] A Deck of Cards ... No. As we have been
      Message 2 of 14 , Jul 2, 2010
        Pada tanggal Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:54:44 EDT, B1E1Nugent@... menulis
        email dengan judul ([apologetics and theology] A Deck of Cards
        disproves Evolution):

        > Hi guys & gals,
        >
        > Can you believe that a deck of cards can be used to disprove
        > evolution?

        No. As we have been down this road endless times I will try to stay
        clear. But let me, once again, reiterate ONE key point and hope you
        catch it.

        >
        > You're out for a walk and happen to find a deck of playing cards by
        > the side of the path.

        I think our newly joined mathematical friend Paul from
        Australia addressed this very well.

        IW
      • IW
        Menurut penulis M Jefferson ... Well said. IW
        Message 3 of 14 , Jul 5, 2010
          Menurut penulis M Jefferson
          > First let us define Evolution. Evolution is a process that happens every
          > day and is visible and tangible. Evolution is a process in which something
          > passes by degrees to a different stage, usually a more advanced state.
          > Evolutionary observations are made in many aspects of nature. But
          > Darwinism is very different from Evolution. If we want to disprove
          > evolution, we have already failed. If we want to disprove Darwinism, our
          > chances are much much better because it has at its core a focus on natural
          > selection, which is holds about as much water as sieve. But if we are also
          > to examine the concept of the origins of life on earth, then that is a
          > whole other conversation that will included chemistry and not just
          > naturalists observations.

          Well said.

          IW
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.