| Even if the chance that all the events | | | | 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 |
| coming together perfectly to create life | | | | 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 |
| on Earth is virtually an impossible | | | | 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 |
| probability with staggering odds (which | | | | 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 |
| it is), we are told by evolutionists | | | | 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 |
| that it should not matter. As the | | | | 000000000000000000000000 (it's actually |
| physicist Stenger says, "Why not? Given | | | | a much larger denominator than that but |
| all possibilities, why shouldn't it have | | | | those are enough zeros for my point |
| happened? And why not all other | | | | here), the "1" in the numerator is |
| possibilities as well? Our universe was | | | | viewed as a very real possibility. It |
| formed in one of the infinite number of | | | | is not. That's what all the zeros mean. |
| ways it could have formed. The | | | | This is not a probability that argues |
| particular structure of our universe | | | | what could happen but rather a |
| came about by chance, freezing into form | | | | probability that insists upon what will |
| just like the six points of a | | | | not happen. If the odds of something |
| snowflake." So the evolutionist loads | | | | happening is 1 in 10, then the odds it |
| the dice with infinite universes and | | | | won't is 9 in 10. Odds for, of 1 in |
| infinite time and that makes the | | | | 10000000000, means odds against are |
| impossibility of life coming to be by | | | | 9999999999 in 10000000000. Extrapolate |
| chance not a long shot, but a virtual | | | | that to the larger number in the |
| surety. Before we permit ourselves to | | | | previous paragraph to see the virtual |
| get too excited about this "anything is | | | | surety that the protein will not emerge |
| possible" argument, let's set the ground | | | | by chance. From a strictly |
| rules. If anything is possible-apples | | | | probabilistic standpoint, the chance |
| jumping off the ground and reattaching | | | | emergence and evolution of life is, by |
| to trees, humans hatching out of chicken | | | | any reasonable definition of the word, |
| eggs, the desert sand turning into | | | | impossible. Yet this impossibility |
| ocean, life emerging from lifeless | | | | becomes surety to the materialist |
| matter-then there can be no certainty | | | | because other possibilities (such as |
| about anything. All science would end | | | | intelligent design), no matter how |
| and we would fear putting one foot in | | | | probable they may be, are just too |
| front of the other because of the | | | | unpalatable. But all this play on |
| possibility of the floor turning to | | | | numbers and odds assumes that the |
| quicksand or disappearing entirely. | | | | hypothetical phenomena of life emerging |
| Yet that is not how things are, for you, | | | | and evolving are a matter of chance. |
| me or the most devout of materialistic | | | | They are not. Scientific laws make |
| evolutionists. The philosopher | | | | things happen in a particular way, not |
| Descartes, wrestling with a similar | | | | chance. Things with mass fall to Earth, |
| quandary concluded, "cogito ergo sum", I | | | | north poles attract south poles, |
| think, therefore I am. That is a good | | | | negative charges attract positive |
| starting point for us as well. We are | | | | charges and mass and energy are never |
| real and our thinking process is real. | | | | destroyed, they just change places. An |
| The way we sort real from unreal, | | | | apple "could" jump to Pluto rather than |
| resolve important human issues and go | | | | fall to the ground and one could |
| about day-to-day life (thinking and | | | | calculate the odds for that. But it |
| being "I am") is by ignoring the | | | | won't happen because there is a law of |
| virtually impossible and banking on the | | | | gravity and several others that declare |
| probable, the reasonable and certain. | | | | it won't. It's not really a matter of |
| By what process does a scientist | | | | odds; it's a matter of law. Now then, |
| partition his mind such that he can one | | | | law governs every event that could lead |
| day busy himself about in the laboratory | | | | to the emergence of life and to its |
| clanging together test tubes looking for | | | | evolution as well, not chance. The laws |
| high probabilities and certainty, go to | | | | of chemistry, physics and biology |
| sleep, wake up in the morning and then | | | | declare and demand that order cannot |
| announce to a classroom or in an article | | | | emerge from chaos, life cannot emerge |
| that high improbabilities make | | | | from non-life (law of biogenesis), and |
| certainty, i.e., life emerged by chance? | | | | once order is present it cannot compound |
| By so doing he accepts unquestionably, | | | | and improve upon itself (gain complexity |
| as a philosophical premise, that which | | | | and information) from chaos. Since life |
| he would never excuse in others, namely | | | | is highly ordered it could not therefore |
| that unlikely events are the ones we | | | | have emerged from a chaotic primordial |
| should bank on. Remember, this same | | | | soup. Neither could existent life have |
| materialist rejects extrasensory | | | | increased complexity (evolved) and |
| perception, remote viewing, miracles, | | | | transmutated from random events such as |
| creation, foreknowledge, life after | | | | mutations. The most obvious, well |
| death and the like not because they are | | | | tested and sure of all laws in science |
| impossible, but because they appear | | | | and experience demands that order come |
| improbable. Double standard? Most | | | | from order, information from information |
| certainly. The illogic emerges from | | | | and mind from mind. Spontaneous |
| distorting the meaning of the math of | | | | generation and evolution fly directly in |
| probabilities. For example, if the | | | | the face of these laws. Probabilities |
| chance of a simple protein coming into | | | | do not change that. For further reading, |
| existence by chance is 1 in | | | | or for more information about, Dr Wysong |
| 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 | | | | and the Wysong Corporation please visit |
| 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 | | | | or write to . |