Arnold Williams (notebuyer) wrote,
Arnold Williams

Evolution: my own argument against.

The planet has been around for billions of years, and we are expecting to use nothing but atoms, energy, and chance.

Sounds possible?

Let's try to put some numbers to that chance, and see how likely we are to get there.

We don't. We don't get there within the age of the universe, much less the age of the planet. If you're going to rely on chance, you have to accept what we know about the arithmetic of chance. Here, several shortcuts were made to make it work even at that pathetic level. In reality, those shortcuts would have knocked out the possibility of evolution entirely within the first time frame.

Keep in mind that Charles Darwin spoke as if chance was operating on undifferentiated live stuff, and producing that would be sufficient: but it's not sufficient for eyes and other sensory organs.

Some assembly required. End of story on undirected evolution.
Tags: evolution

  • Understanding the difference between being a manager and being a maker

    Recommended. EXCERPT: Paul Graham has a famous essay about managers vs makers. There are two ways to run your life, he says. Managers know that…

  • Do Christians Love the World?

    ▾ This question came up in reference to 1 John 2:15-17 - 15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the…

  • Surprise

    I'm listening to the classical radio station from the University of Southern California when suddenly my ear is caught. The tune involves the BBC…

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded