Isn't Creationism mathematically impossible?

[QAQueen]

Have you looked up the odds of even one of the protein molecules necessary for life springing up by chance out of some "primordial soup"? You might want to check it out.=============A scientist computed the probability of a single protein molecule (one of the molecules essential for life) arising out of chance. As stated in the book Human Destiny, it would take 10 to the 243d power [1 followed by 243 zeros] billions of years for this to happen! Since scientists estimate the age of the earth to be a few billion years, there would not have been enough time for this to occur!”

[turntable1807]

"If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it even reached its present size" Stephen Hawkings...i think creation is mathematically possible...so now your unbelief in God is a numbers game...

[donte30303672]

Mathematics does prove that creationism is possible. That idea is similar to a baseball game officiated with football rules. Mathematics and other intellectual concepts which involve figuring out the material world. I don't know if anyone has ever told you, but the universe is not entirely material. That is why there are other concepts and realities to explain what linear concepts cannot. Meaning is a nonphysical thing. The numbers in mathematics have no power unless meaning is given to them. So my question would be where does meaning come from?

[Jason7889]

Of course, the probability of God having created it all are inconceivably lower than the so-called mathematical impossibility of evolution. SOOO...In order for this miracle to occur, probability and the laws of physics have to have some meaning. If they can be waived for the much more mathematically impossible event of divine creation, then it is much more likely that they would have been put on hold for evolution without divine intervention. Of course, it's easy to talk about the mathematical impossibility of evolution when one doesn't have to refer to the specific odds against special creation. How's that for convenient? So...no one can show you the probability of intelligent design because there is no way to measure it or evaluate it. I can just as correctly claim that it is mathematically less probable than the probability of amino acids coming together by chance as one can claim that special creation had to have occurred, and be just as correct in saying, "therefore, evolution had to have occurred."Improbability is not evidence against something. It is simply improbability. It is certainly NOT evidence for the alternative hypothesis of creation (if I can bring myself to give it that much credibility). It is an argument from incredulity to call it that. "It is difficult to conceive of..." with a veneer of technical jargon.

[turtlesallthewaydown1997]

There's no such thing as a mathematical impossibility. There is a 1 in 10^68 chance that the deck of cards I have is in the order that it is in. According to the people who believe that low probabilities are mathematical impossibilities, that deck cannot be in that order.

[capnarlo]

No. Yes the prophesy of Jesus Christ being the Messiah. In the Old Testament there are 60 major prophesies and about 270 ramifications that were fulfilled in the person and only the person of Jesus Christ. Now lets just take 8 prophesies and thru the modern science of probability determine the odds that only one man could fulfill just 8 prophesies . The odds are only 1 chance in 100,000,000,000,000,000. That is like taking 100,000,000, 000,000,000 silver dollars and laying them across the state of Texas . They would cover the whole state and be 2 feet thick. Now put a mark on one of those silver dollars and mix them all up. Blindfold a man and tell him to wander around the state of Texas and find the right one. The odds that he could find it on the first try are 1/100,000,000, 000,000,000. Now if Jesus only fulfilled 8 those are the same odds . It is a mathematical certainty that Jesus is the Son od God by just 8 fulfilled prophesies. He fulfilled 330 of them .Therefore since this is true we can reasonalbly conclude that the rest of the Bible is true as well, including the creation account. . Your numbers are a fabrication but these are actual mathematical statistics. The chance of evolution happening is nonexistant. Come to Christ.

[BrianL3827]

"A scientist computed the probability of a single protein molecule (one of the molecules essential for life) arising out of chance. As stated in the book Human Destiny, it would take 10 to the 243d power [1 followed by 243 zeros] billions of years for this to happen! Since scientists estimate the age of the earth to be a few billion years, there would not have been enough time for this to occur!"Actually that would mean it would likely happen only once every bazillion years, meaning it could happen at any point in that time period. So in fact, a few billion years is more than enough time for this to take place. Congratulations, you just proved your own argument wrong.People forget that random events are... well... random. Just because something it unlikely to happen doesn't mean that it won't happen.

[docjp2729]

If one needs to adhere to a certain belief, ones MIND will feed thoughts [I refer to such thoughts as Delusional Thinking] to the Left-hemisphere of ones brain that will cause one to "think" that one is correct. Much of this D-Think will be rationalization that appears to one as real, factual, and true.None of them are True in an absolute sense, because they are all D-Think... and thus "created" to sustain ones delusional thinking. To insure one believes one is correct.Proof that "Creationism is even possible?" The concept of Creationism [absent the hysterical fear that prevents one from "seeing" the proof] is replicated everyday as people "create" new ideas, new things, and re-create areas that have been damaged by nature.To accept the concept of creating, and deny the concept as applying to the Creation itself is an exercise in denial due to lack of understanding based on lack of acceptance that much exists that cannot be seen or understood by ones brain and thinking.Take ones MIND for instance. Since the early 1900's modern mental health has denied the MIND as being separate from the brain. It is denied due to fear of the "Unknown" by those unable to exercise intuition sufficiently to experience their MIND realms. The MIND is Esoteric in that it consists of an energy that ones brain cannot perceive.Ones Spiritual realm is also Esoteric, and its vibrational reality is also too subtle for ones physical brain to perceive. For someone locked into the Left-Hemisphere of his/her brain to suggest that the Esoteric realms within Man do not exist... simply because he/she is unable to perceive these realms with his/her limitation.... is D-Think born of fear.It is not for those whose psychic faculties allow them to perceive the Esoteric to deny what they Know, it is rather for those unable to perceive the Esoteric to admit their limitation.But this is difficult to do because of a fear that those unable to perceive the Esoteric do not even know they have. The more fear one has the stronger is ones denial of the Esoteric. The strange thing is that such people are more inclined to believe their own delusional thinking than what those who are capable of "seeing" the Esoteric report as existing. The term "mental" in mental health refers to the MIND, and yet not one in a thousand mental health professionals today knowns what the MIND is, where it is, or how it operates. And yet their fear of the MIND causes them to "think" that they know what the MIND is because they can spell it, define it, and use it in a sentence. Their D-Think is complete.... to paraphrase Darth Vader.Peace

[PastorBiker3025]

heres your mathmatical equation you prolly wasnt lookin for but I aim to inform.. God blessCreationism defended Premise 1: Mathematics is real, at least as a real description of the universe. Mathematics has been used to model and describe countless phenomenon observed in business and scientific applications. For example, consider models of two variables x and y.sin( ( ))1ln...020 1 22 2y a b c x daecyy aby axy a b xy a a x a x a xAx Bxy Cy Dx Ey Fbxxbnn= + -+==== += + + + ++ + + + + =-These common “mathematical models” are referred to as second-degree, polynomial, logarithmic, power, exponential, logistic, and sinusoidal. These seven models have been used to describe and predict the accumulation of wealth, cost analysis, marketing strategies, radioactive decay, the earth’s mass distribution, the orbital paths of celestial bodies, and population fluctuations, just to name a few. What is so remarkable about this list is the simplicity of each equation. The only requirement is knowing the value of a small number of constants. The universe seems “hard-wired” with the laws of mathematics. The applications of mathematics draw one to conclude that mathematics must be real at least as a description of the physical universe.Premise 2: Mathematics exists independently from the physical/temporal universe. If one talks with mathematicians at any length one is left with the impression that mathematicians think that mathematics is of utmost importance. It is not just that mathematics is simply describing something. They treat mathematics as if it were a real entity, whose truth does not depend on the physical universe. Menzel (Howell & Bradley, 2001, p. 69) notes that even if there were not “pebbles and pomegranates and other countable sorts of things, there still would have been the number 11, as well as the proposition that it is prime.” Also implied is the independence of mathematics from time itself. The theorems of mathematics seem as if they were true even before time began and would continue to be true though time no longer existed. The practice of mathematics draws one to conclude that mathematics is true and exists independently from the physical/temporal universe. Premise 3: Mathematics is communicable between rational beings. First-order logic has been used as a foundation for almost all of mathematics. In particular, first-order logic includes the formalities needed to insure the effectiveness of formulas, axioms, and rules of inference.i) For a formula to be effective “there must be an effective procedure for deciding, for an arbitrary string of symbols, whether it is a formula.”ii) For an axiom to be effective “there must be an effective procedure for deciding, for an arbitrary formula, whether it is an axiom.”iii) For a finite sequence of formula, “there must be an effective procedure for deciding …whether each member of the sequence may be inferred from one or more of those preceding it by a rule of inference” (Stoll, 1963, p. 373).First-order logic is built up with a number of allowable symbols:i) variable symbols (like a1, a2, a3, …)ii) logical connectives: Ÿ, ⁄, ÿ, Æ, ´, etc.iii) quantifiers: ", $iv) equality: =v) parentheses: ( , ) vi) a set of constant symbols vii) a set of relation symbols viii) a set of functions symbols 0-ary relation symbols are allowed and are called propositional symbols. We specify a language in first-order logic by listing all other nonlogical symbols. For example arithmetic in the natural numbers can be specified using the language {0, s, +, *}, where s is the successor function: s(x) = x + 1.First-order logic also specifies the rules that guide the construction of proofs. The rules are called the set of proof axioms for a first-order language, where x and y are variables and p,q and r are formulas:i) p Æ (q Æ p) ii) (p Æ (q Æ r)) Æ ((p Æ q) Æ (p Æ r)) iii) ÿÿp Æ p iv) ("x) (p Æ q) Æ (p Æ ("x) q), where x is not free in q v) ("x) (p Æ p[t/x]), where x is free in p, and t is any term whose free variables are not bound in p vi) ("x) (x = x) vii) ("x "y) ((x = y) Æ (p Æ p[y/x])), where x is free in p, and y is not bound in p We are also allowed two rules of inference, commonly referred to as modus ponens and generalization:i) from p and (p Æ q) infer q, where q has a free variable or p is a sentence ii) from p infer ("x) (p), where x does not occur free in any premise which has been used in the proof of p These proof axioms require the notions of free and bound variables along with variable substitution. Informally, any occurrence of a variable in a formula in which " does not appear is free; and in ("x)p the quantifier ‘binds’ all occurrences of x in p which were not previously bound… Formally, if p is a formula, t a term and x a variable, we define p[t/x] (‘p with t for x’) to be the formula obtained from p on replacing each free occurrence of x by t, provided no free variable of t occurs bound in p; if it does, we must first replace each bound occurrence of such a variable by a bound occurrence of some new variable which didn’t occur previously in either p or t. (Johnstone, 1987, pp. 19-20, 22-23)Gödel and Henkin were able to show that even in the broad context of all first-order theories, there were conclusions that could be made. The following meta-theorems (theorems about mathematics itself) were established, where T is a set of sentences for some first-order language L and p is any formula.i) (Soundness Theorem) If p can be proven to be true, then p is true for every model of T with every assignment of variables.ii) (Completeness Theorem) If p is true for every model of T with every assignmentof variables, then p can be proven to be true.iii) (Extended Completeness Theorem) T is a consistent theory (never leading to contradictory theorems) if and only if T has a model. iv) (Compactness Theorem) T has a model if and only if every finite subset of T has a model.Barwise (1977, p. 41) describes the accomplishments of first-order logic:Many logicians would contend that there is no logic beyond first-order logic, in the sense that when one is forced to make all one’s mathematical (extra-logical) assumptions explicit, these axioms can always be expressed in first-order logic, and that the informal notion of provable used in mathematics is made precise by the formal notion provable in first-order logic. Barwise claims that expressibility is supported by empirical evidence, and provability is supported by the completeness theorem. This means that rational beings have a mechanism for expressing mathematical ideas and for checking each other’s proofs. Recent advances in logic draw one to conclude that mathematics is communicable between rational beings. Premise 4: Mathematics must be mediated by a time-independent intelligent being. Hilbert tried to go a step further. He attempted to demonstrate that logic could also verify that there were no contradictions in mathematics. Martin (1977, p. 825) translates Hilbert as saying:If the arbitrarily given axioms do not contradict each other through their consequences, then they are true, then the objects defined through the axioms exist. That, for me is the criterion of truth and existence. Hilbert attempted to define truth based solely on axioms, and hence to separate the truth of mathematics from rational beings, including God Himself. In others words, Hilbert is claiming that mathematics is created/sustained simply because it is non-contradictory, with no need for an intelligent creator. However, such a program could not be carried out, even on the natural numbers. Peano attempted to characterize the natural numbers with the following firstorder theory, known as Peano arithmetic.i) "x ÿ(s(x) = 0) (0 is not a successor)ii) "x"y (s(x) = s(y) Æ x = y) (unique successors)iii) "x (x + 0 = x) (0 is additive identity)iv) "x ((x + s(y)) = s(x + y) (distributivity of addition successor function)v) "x (x * 0 = 0) (multiplicative property of 0)vi) "x"y (x * s(y)) = (x * y) + x (distributivity of addition over successor function)vii) If f(x) is a formula with x free, then f(0) ^ "x (f(x) Æ f(s(x)) Æ "x f(x)(axioms of mathematical induction)Gödel and others were able to show the fallacy of Hilbert’s view of mathematics even when studying something as simple (?) as the natural numbers. The following theorems concern Peano arithmetic and can be used as evidence to support the necessity of a time-independent rational being.i) (First Incompleteness Theorem) Any formal theory which contains Peano arithmetic cannot prove some sentences which are known to be true. This seems to indicate that mathematical truth is ultimately not simply a logic consequence of a set of axioms, but must be decided by some external intelligence.ii) (Second Incompleteness Theorem) Peano arithmetic cannot prove a sentence that asserts the consistency (free from contradictions) of it own theory. This seems to indicate that the consistency of mathematics must be accepted on faith.iii) The set of true sentences of Peano arithmetic is not definable by a first-order formula. This seems to indicate that a time-dependent being could never know everything there is to know about mathematics and therefore mathematics must have been created by a being outside of time.iv) There is no effective procedure to determine whether an arbitrarily given statement is true or false. This seems to indicate that the verification of mathematics cannot be accomplished using only concrete methods. Since mathematics needs abstract methods, it also needs an intelligent being to use those methods.v) Using a Turing machine, there i

[SlyFox9634]

If you toss a coin, and ask most people what the probable out come will be, most will say it a 50/50 prob. of heads or tails, but this is not true, there is also the possibility that it could come down and land on it's edge, now this is very unlikely but not impossible.The mechanics of the action make it impossible that it will stay floating in the air, (here on earth, anyway) and that it will fall, so other forces come into the picture and as pointed out a chemical reaction is not random and in given situations it it a certainly, that's the amino acid sorted then.Now we have the basic building block so lets shack them up and see what happens!Remember we are not tossing just one coin once here! if we toss 100's of billions of coins every ten hundredth of a second, then the result over time is going to be a rather number of non heads or tails!Added to this the fact that once life gets a hold it is a resistant little SOB (the simple form anyway) just think of the bacteria that went up to the moon and stayed there for some seven years and when brought back was easily reanimated (If you have never heard about this then you should have!)Any way the point is that Stats are often an over simplified toy used by politicians (and the like) to fool fools!Nice question thanks for giving me the possibility to add my bit. ;-))