| Even if the chance that all the events
| |
| | 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
|
| coming together perfectly to create life
| |
| | 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
|
| on Earth is virtually an impossible
| |
| | 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
|
| probability with staggering odds (which
| |
| | 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
|
| it is), we are told by evolutionists that
| |
| | 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
|
| it should not matter. As the physicist
| |
| | 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
|
| Stenger says, "Why not? Given all
| |
| | 00000000000000000 (it's actually a much
|
| possibilities, why shouldn't it have
| |
| | larger denominator than that but those
|
| happened? And why not all other
| |
| | are enough zeros for my point here), the
|
| possibilities as well? Our universe was
| |
| | "1" in the numerator is viewed as a very
|
| formed in one of the infinite number of
| |
| | real possibility. It is not. That's
|
| ways it could have formed. The
| |
| | what all the zeros mean. This is not a
|
| particular structure of our universe came
| |
| | probability that argues what could happen
|
| about by chance, freezing into form just
| |
| | but rather a probability that insists
|
| like the six points of a snowflake." So
| |
| | upon what will not happen. If the odds
|
| the evolutionist loads the dice with
| |
| | of something happening is 1 in 10, then
|
| infinite universes and infinite time and
| |
| | the odds it won't is 9 in 10. Odds for,
|
| that makes the impossibility of life
| |
| | of 1 in 10000000000, means odds against
|
| coming to be by chance not a long shot,
| |
| | are 9999999999 in 10000000000.
|
| but a virtual surety. Before we permit
| |
| | Extrapolate that to the larger number in
|
| ourselves to get too excited about this
| |
| | the previous paragraph to see the virtual
|
| "anything is possible" argument, let's
| |
| | surety that the protein will not emerge
|
| set the ground rules. If anything is
| |
| | by chance. From a strictly
|
| possible-apples jumping off the ground
| |
| | probabilistic standpoint, the chance
|
| and reattaching to trees, humans hatching
| |
| | emergence and evolution of life is, by
|
| out of chicken eggs, the desert sand
| |
| | any reasonable definition of the word,
|
| turning into ocean, life emerging from
| |
| | impossible. Yet this impossibility
|
| lifeless matter-then there can be no
| |
| | becomes surety to the materialist because
|
| certainty about anything. All science
| |
| | other possibilities (such as intelligent
|
| would end and we would fear putting one
| |
| | design), no matter how probable they may
|
| foot in front of the other because of the
| |
| | be, are just too unpalatable. But all
|
| possibility of the floor turning to
| |
| | this play on numbers and odds assumes
|
| quicksand or disappearing entirely. Yet
| |
| | that the hypothetical phenomena of life
|
| that is not how things are, for you, me
| |
| | emerging and evolving are a matter of
|
| or the most devout of materialistic
| |
| | chance. They are not. Scientific laws
|
| evolutionists. The philosopher
| |
| | make things happen in a particular way,
|
| Descartes, wrestling with a similar
| |
| | not chance. Things with mass fall to
|
| quandary concluded, "cogito ergo sum", I
| |
| | Earth, north poles attract south poles,
|
| think, therefore I am. That is a good
| |
| | negative charges attract positive charges
|
| starting point for us as well. We are
| |
| | and mass and energy are never destroyed,
|
| real and our thinking process is real.
| |
| | they just change places. An apple
|
| The way we sort real from unreal, resolve
| |
| | "could" jump to Pluto rather than fall to
|
| important human issues and go about
| |
| | the ground and one could calculate the
|
| day-to-day life (thinking and being "I
| |
| | odds for that. But it won't happen
|
| am") is by ignoring the virtually
| |
| | because there is a law of gravity and
|
| impossible and banking on the probable,
| |
| | several others that declare it won't.
|
| the reasonable and certain. By what
| |
| | It's not really a matter of odds; it's a
|
| process does a scientist partition his
| |
| | matter of law. Now then, law governs
|
| mind such that he can one day busy
| |
| | every event that could lead to the
|
| himself about in the laboratory clanging
| |
| | emergence of life and to its evolution as
|
| together test tubes looking for high
| |
| | well, not chance. The laws of chemistry,
|
| probabilities and certainty, go to sleep,
| |
| | physics and biology declare and demand
|
| wake up in the morning and then announce
| |
| | that order cannot emerge from chaos, life
|
| to a classroom or in an article that high
| |
| | cannot emerge from non-life (law of
|
| improbabilities make certainty, i.e.,
| |
| | biogenesis), and once order is present it
|
| life emerged by chance? By so doing he
| |
| | cannot compound and improve upon itself
|
| accepts unquestionably, as a
| |
| | (gain complexity and information) from
|
| philosophical premise, that which he
| |
| | chaos. Since life is highly ordered it
|
| would never excuse in others, namely that
| |
| | could not therefore have emerged from a
|
| unlikely events are the ones we should
| |
| | chaotic primordial soup. Neither could
|
| bank on. Remember, this same
| |
| | existent life have increased complexity
|
| materialist rejects extrasensory
| |
| | (evolved) and transmutated from random
|
| perception, remote viewing, miracles,
| |
| | events such as mutations. The most
|
| creation, foreknowledge, life after death
| |
| | obvious, well tested and sure of all laws
|
| and the like not because they are
| |
| | in science and experience demands that
|
| impossible, but because they appear
| |
| | order come from order, information from
|
| improbable. Double standard? Most
| |
| | information and mind from mind.
|
| certainly. The illogic emerges from
| |
| | Spontaneous generation and evolution fly
|
| distorting the meaning of the math of
| |
| | directly in the face of these laws.
|
| probabilities. For example, if the
| |
| | Probabilities do not change that. For
|
| chance of a simple protein coming into
| |
| | further reading, or for more information
|
| existence by chance is 1 in
| |
| | about, Dr Wysong and the Wysong
|
| 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000
| |
| | Corporation please visit or write to .
|
