Creation: May Math Lessons

Posted by Gregg on May 1, 2011 in Blog Stuff |

Gregg & Hallee in Kuwait

A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.

Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications in our modern culture.

For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the authoritative Biblical account — or fallible secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.

A Short Math Lesson

Creation: Moonrise, Moon over Earth

How old am I?

First let’s talk about earth.

Darwinists claim that according to Cosmic Evolution, the age of the earth is approximately 4.2 to 5.6 billion years. I am willing to compromise by several hundred million years so let’s assume 5 billion years just to have a whole number.

There are 60 seconds per minute, 60 minutes per hour, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. That is 31,536 x 10^-3 or 31,536,000 seconds per single year.

Therefore, there are 157,680,000,000,000,000 seconds, or only 15,768 x 10^-13 seconds, in 5 billion years.  Got it so far? Okay. Good. Bear with me. It isn’t all boring math.

Let’s talk about the entire universe.

How old are we?

Darwinists claim that the age of the universe is approximately 14.6 to 16.2 billion years.  Again, I am willing to compromise by several hundred million years so let’s assume 15 billion years

There are 60 seconds per minute, 60 minutes per hour, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. That is 31,536 x 10^-3 or 31,536,000 seconds per single year.

Therefore, there are 473,040,000,000,000 seconds or only 47,304 x 10^10 seconds in 15 billion years.

The modern understanding of molecular biology allows scientists to calculate the PROBABILITY of dirt and rocks deciding to form a living organism. Since the modern evolutionary synthesis, the foundation of neo-Darwinism is based on RANDOM mutations and this kind of randomness can quantified, qualified, and thus calculated mathematically with a very high degree of precision. These calculations are an important predictor of the validity of Darwinist evolutionary theory.

Side Note:  Probability was not an issue up through 1965, when evolutionary scientists could still claim an infinite amount of time and matter was available because Darwinists believed that the universe was eternal.

But it is a critical issue today, now that even rabidly ardent evolutionists estimate the Earth is at most only 4.6 to 5.2 billion years old, which allows substantially less time for slow, gradual evolutionary processes over time to produce our planet and the life we observe.

Mathematical Impossibility

Nineteenth century mathematician, Émile Borel, estimated that one has reached mathematical impossibility when one achieves odds of 1 chance in 10^-50 expressed as 1/10^-50.

Modern mathematician, William Dembski, has calculated a lower limit of 1/10^-150, based on the number of elementary particles in the universe and the supposed age of the universe.

Let’s go with the much smaller and more modern lower limit of 1/10^-150 for purposes of this post.

Simplest Living Cell

Creation: Protein in Water

Protein in Water

The smallest theoretical self-reproducing cell is made up of 239 proteins. At least 124 different and very specific types of proteins are needed for this imaginary cell to become a living thing.

It should be noted that the simplest known non-imaginary self-reproducing organism is the H39 strain of PPLO (mycoplasma) containing 625 proteins with an average of 400 amino acids in a highly complex and very specific sequence in each and every protein. Even this life form is not a great example, since without the existence of other more complex living things upon which the mycoplasma depends parastically or symbiotically, it would cease to live.

Still, let’s use the theoretical cell for the purpose of this post.

The Probability

The probability of the occurrence of the smallest theoretical life form is only 1/10^-119,879.  The years required for the smallest theoretical life form to “evolve” via a very generous neo-Darwinist evolutionary model would be 10^-119,841 years, or 10^-119,831 times the assumed age of the earth.

The probability of the smallest theoretical cell of only 239 proteins “evolving” without the needed 124 different types of proteins to make up a living cell, i.e., the chance of evolving this “helpless group of non-living molecules” in less than 500 billion years is 1/10^-119,701.  Otherwise, it would take an additional 485 billion years than the assumed age of the entire universe.

Math is Fun!

Dr. David J. Rodabough, Associate Professor of Mathematics at the University of Missouri, estimated the more realistic probability that life would spontaneously generate (even on 10^-23 planets) as only 1/10^-2,999,940.

Cytochrome C is a small protein found throughout the biological realm and thus, assuming the neo-Darwinian model is true, had to have appeared early in Darwin’s evolutionary process.

Information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated a probability of 1/10^-75 to generate Cytochrome C spontaneously from an amino acid-rich environment.

To put this into perspective: a 1/10^-75 chance is less likely than winning the 9 state Powerball lottery nine weeks in a row, buying only one ticket per week only 9 times.

Naturally, life is composed of many more-complex molecules than Cytochrome C. Murray Eden, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, calculated a probability of 1/10^-313 to spontaneously bring polypeptide sequences together into functional proteins

Upon discovering the odds against so-called abiogenesis, life spontaneously springing into being, Darwinist and astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle PhD proclaimed “It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet or on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”

Scientists Walter L. Bradley and Charles Thaxton, co-authors of The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, point out that the probability of assembling amino acid building blocks into a functional protein is approximately 1/(4.9 X 10^-191).

Even allowing some 14 concessions to help it along, which would not actually be present during Darwinian evolution, they estimate the probability of evolving a single protein molecule over a mere 5 billion years at 1/10^-161.

“Such improbabilities have led essentially all scientists who work in the field to reject random, accidental assembly or fortuitous good luck as an explanation for how life began.”

Physicist Harold Morowitz calculated that if a large batch of bacteria in a sealed container is heated so that every chemical bond is broken, then cooled slowly to allow the atoms to form new bonds and come to equilibrium, there is a probability of 1/10^-100,000,000,000 that a living bacterium will be present at the end of that time.

So, to Sum Up

Creation: Confused Chimp

Math is HARD! (on Darwinists)

Mathematical Impossibility:
10^-50 is 10 followed by 50 zeros
10^-150 is 10 followed by 150 zeros

Alleged Age of Earth and the Universe:
10^-13 is 10 followed by 13 zeros
10^-10 is 10 followed by 10 zeros

There are only 15,768 x 10^-13 seconds in 5 billion years
There are only 47,304 x 10^-10 seconds in 15 billion years

Probability of Life Spontaneously Forming via Undrected Processes, Randomness, and Chance in That Time:
10^-100,000,000,000 is the number 10 followed by one hundred trillion zeros.

The Truth

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
Arthur Schopenhauer (22 February 1788 – 21 September 1860)

Paradigm (Greek parádeigma): When a certain theory or a system of hypotheses, or a worldview pervades entire fields of research or an entire scientific era, it is known as a paradigm.

“[The accepted paradigm then] dictates the scope for specific research and delineates the presuppositions used for explaining individual phenomena. If a system of hypotheses has been derived from presuppositions dictated by a worldview, it usually cannot be reconciled with the available facts. Typical examples are geocentricity (refuted by Copernicus), and phlogiston chemistry (disproved by Lavoisier in 1774).”
Dr. Werner Gitt PhD, In the Beginning Was Information

The current paradigm in biology is the Darwinian evolutionary model. Since Darwinism is based on a philosophy, a world view, the truth claims of the Darwinian paradigm cannot be reconciled with the available facts. Therefore, the model of evolution first proposed by Darwin and transformed over the last several decades into Neo-Darwinism…is in crisis.

Darwinian evolution lacks precision. It is muddy, full of gaps, founded on utterly impossible assumptions, and not founded in logic. “Well, if we ignore the known laws of the universe and ignore the fact that the odds of this taking place are utterly impossible…”

As for precision, Darwinists cannot even define what a species is. When it turned out that macro-evolution has never been observed, the theory equivocated macro-evolution with speciation which has been observed since well before Darwin.  The fact is that evolution of the type claimed by Darwin and still assumed by modern Darwinists has never (and apparently cannot be) observed. It is not supported by any evidence.

The truth is that the foundational tenets of Darwinism can be easily disassembled in less than 10 minutes of speech or on less than 3 pages of double spaced paper. Think about this for a second. I routinely refute the grand claims of the Darwinist theory in a few paragraphs on a blog devoted to homemaking.

Knowledgeable scientists know Darwinism is a theory in crisis. Based on their worldview, they either operate as if there is no crisis, or they operate based on design and engineering principles and let the chips fall where they may.

The issue is that we are squarely in the middle of a paradigm shift.  The idea of Intelligent Design was first ridiculed and now is being violently opposed.  It is my sincere hope that my children will grow up in a post-paradigm world.

I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.

God Bless you and yours.


Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism


Related Posts with Thumbnails

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Copyright © 2009-2017 Hallee the Homemaker All rights reserved.
Desk Mess Tripled v1.0 theme from

Copyright © 2009 - 2017 Hallee the Homemaker All Rights Reserved.