Mathematics, common sense and the origin of man.

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 11:10 PM

First, let me apologize in advance for some of my shortcomings in the very specific science that is associated with evolution. I am not a grad student at the top of my class in biological science but I do possess a very healthy knowledge of the subject matter.

Very simply, what I would like to know is if anyone here on ATS that is promoting evolution as the means for which the human species is in existence on this planet knows the mathematical odds of that happening. Further, if they do have those statistics, do they further understand the mathematical odds that would be necessary for the creation of our universe through the big bang and subsequently responsible for the physics necessary for life to even be possible to evolve.

Entropy is tricky, how exactly do those who insist on the big bang and evolution explain away the impossible numbers that the math seems to dictate happened to achieve those scenarios?

It's stuff like this video that gets your mind going, well that and things like faith and the appreciation of life that only comes from spiritual awareness but that in and of itself is subjective and only relative to those who experience it and thus can not be used as merited evidence.

edit on 25-9-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 11:14 PM
reply to post by Helious

The truth is out there. The mathematical odds against us are almost infinite to our current understanding. Just the fact that we all (as cultural groups) believe in a higher power that put us into existence is proof enough to me that earth and its inhabitants are not some kind of statistical odd. Someone or something made this planet what it is, and I believe they are still here in some form or another, watching us progress through time and knowledge.

posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 11:23 PM
reply to post by ntfaulkner19

Truth be told, in my personal opinion, I find the theory of evolution an affront to my common sense but I understand that not everyone shares my views and rather than get upset about that or sit myself on a soapbox to preach why they are wrong, I am more interested to understand why it is they believe what they believe.

You never know, if at the end of the day, it turns out it makes more sense to me than the conclusion I have reached, well....... My mind is far from closed but my convictions on what we are and how that came to be are quite strong.

My feelings do not come by any means through blind faith or from ancient scripture, my views mainly come from science itself. My reference to a "Creator" is not limited to a Christian God or any other denomination of religion. I simply mean to state that I believe in a creator, in the basic meaning of the word. I don't believe something as complex and mathematically impossible such as the universe that we live in is possible as governed by science as a rational explanation for human life and consciousness spontaneously appearing for no specific reason.

Edited to say: I should be completely honest and say that I am an ordained lutheran minister and have done missionary work through the years and I do believe in Jesus but I have also been a bartender my whole life, a realist and a man of science and my stance on this subject has nothing to do with my Christian views but I would be amiss of my values if I did not disclose this information. I hate disclosing my personal religion on ATS but It needed to be said here for credibility reasons.
edit on 25-9-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 11:33 PM
reply to post by Helious

Seeing you like math and probablities you might find this math very intresting a short vid but the series is large

Do you think this is just coincidental ? peace

posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 11:37 PM
Darwin tried to prove that a Creator existed by
showing the unseen forces behind natural selection.

It is amazing to me that the thesis developed by Charles
Darwin to show that there is in fact a logical system
behind speciation has somehow generated so much friction.

Has anyone ever actually read Darwin's Origin of the Species?

He spends a great deal of energy in the book arguing about the
difference between two brothers. But instead of following up on
that and developing our own modern tests, documenting the lives of
our own siblings and building up a table of useful data to examine, the
so-called evolutionists are always ranting against creationist. Amazing.

Not just amazing. Hilarious. So much energy wasted, so many people who
think they are enlightened when they are the victim of propaganda and manipulation.


My favorite overlooked fact is that Darwin never said that Man was descended from monkeys, but that they may have had a common ancestor. But don't try to tell that to a fan of The Gorillaz. They will get that look in their eyes that says "we must kill it before it breeds."

posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 11:43 PM
reply to post by the2ofusr1

I see mathematical statistical anomalies in everything. The same laws that govern the immense are represented in the tiny, that is, until you get to the sub atomic level and delve into quantum mechanics.

Realistically, I graduated with fire science degree and my last math class was trig in which I scored a solid C- and I will be honest, the equations escape me. With that said, I do understand fundamental and implied mathematics and that includes probability those numbers by any standards directly point to us not existing left to natural methods.

posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 11:46 PM
Evolution certainly does happen, but it has some serious flaws when it comes to explaining why we are what we are, in my opinion.
My guess is something got started on this planet, and then someone came along and dabbled with the genetics, and we are the result.

posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 11:47 PM
reply to post by mikegrouchy

I agree, most people don't realize that Darwin never said there was no "God" and in point of fact he never even championed the idea of what most people associate with evolution. Darwin was responsible for the idea of survival of the fittest as a means of what I would call secondary evolution and in my opinion, he was largely correct in his work.

posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 11:50 PM
reply to post by VoidHawk

I mirror your opinion in many ways. It is obvious to me that many species on Earth will adapt and over time change to better deal with their environment or obtain breeding advantages but that is a very different thing than saying human life, consciousness and the origin of the universe came into being through a spontaneous mathematical anomaly.

posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 11:55 PM
reply to post by Helious
In that link I posted the author using the sacred cubit ,the 360% circle and the 360 sacred year formulate the diameter of the earth moon and sun as well as their circumference and the miles from earth to the moon and sun .He also shows that these numbers are imbedded into the math of the great pyramid in Egypt .The math is spot on and its where Newton got the math to create his thrums from ....peace

posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 12:02 AM
reply to post by Helious

Adaptation and speciation do occur, but I too have the opinion that our entire history isn't 'accidental'. There has been a hand in there somewhere.

I expect this thread to get very interesting. S&F
edit on 26-9-2013 by DaesDaemar because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 12:17 AM
reply to post by Helious

The whole evolution v creation debate annoys me. Why do we always have to pick a side? Seems to me if any malevolent or negative force exists they obviously use divide and conquer as a means to their end.
They have certainly polarised people on this issue.
Why cant we have been created to evolve ?, put simply we have in fact been created as it says in the bible but as time marches on we are evolving as a species.
Compare us now to say 2000 years ago in Rome for example. Genetically we are much the same, but on a mental level we seem to know so much more, this learning curve we are on is not accidental.
It is impossible to know whether we are the descendants from an ancient species without analysing dna, the fact that we can do that now means we have evolved somewhat from our ancestors in Rome who could not do that.

posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 01:07 AM
reply to post by Helious

Well from this

Astronomers estimate 100 billion habitable Earth-like planets in the Milky Way, 50 sextillion in the universe

I think there are far more planets with life out there but we know for certain it has at least happened once.

Anyway don't you mean abiogenesis instead of evolution the two mean different things.

With the big bang I couldn't say but one in just under infinity would still be fine because that's all that is needed.

I guess you could also turn that question around and ask what are the odds of a magical being actually existing creating everything for little old us.

Luckily science is baseded on evidence. We have evidence of the universe and our existence so no matter the odds we know it happened. Figuring out exactly how is ongoing.
edit on 26-9-2013 by Grimpachi because: Link

posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 01:08 AM
reply to post by Helious

Darwin proposed that future researchers study the fossil records for evidence of evolution. The fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appear and disappear abruptly and do not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. There is no evidence of gradual change between species. The evidence of the fossil record strongly supports creationism.

edit on 26-9-2013 by leostokes because: add the word future

posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 01:17 AM
reply to post by Helious

Oh crap, I thought this was gonna be one of the bad 170 minute long videos....

This guy needs an animator and Morgan freeman and he could release this in theaters!!

Getting Morgan to do it is the easy part, just gotta find an animator.
edit on 26-9-2013 by AbleEndangered because: changed 150 to 170

posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 02:08 AM
reply to post by Helious

the statistical probability of an event or events that have happened is irrelevant

posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 04:51 AM

reply to post by Helious

the statistical probability of an event or events that have happened is irrelevant


Looking backwards at statistical probabilities gives a distorted view anyway.

What's the statistical probability, that during a particular season, a particular grain of pollen (of what must be many millions if not billions of other grains produced by the one plant), from a particular anther, on a particular flower, on a particular plant will land on a particular stigma of a different particular flower of a different particular plant (of the same genus), quite some distance away?

The odds must be mind-boggling. But it happens. All the time.
edit on RAmerica/Chicago30000000Thu, 26 Sep 2013 04:56:01 -05009-0500fCDT04 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: Statistically improbable edit..

posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 07:18 AM
By the very fact that an occurrence even has odds means that, by definition, it could happen – otherwise it would be impossible. Even an event with odds of Xbillions:1 has a chance of happening in 1 in every Xbillions of opportunities, on average.

I would say the odds of a sadistic and bored magician deciding one day to make a realm for a fight to the death of his created species would be zero.

posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 07:59 AM
I have a degree in Maths, the closest thing I know o is the Drake equation N = R* • fp • ne • fl • fi • fc • L and updated version:

Basically, there's trillions and trillions of planets out there that can support life - so the chances are there's several million where life will have evolved and a few thousand where civilizations will have.

Interestingly, as the science advances, the parameters where evolution can occur increase so the number of planets where evolution occurs/occured/will occur grows bigger almost by the day.

reply to post by ntfaulkner19 You can't consider just one planet when you're estimating the chances of it occuring on one planet in the entire Universe.

Yes the chances of life happening on a single planet are small but there are at least 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the space we can observe, which makes it occurring on at least one of them a mathematical certainty.

edit on 26-9-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 08:23 AM
I've been writing on a similar topic on another thread, when I get the time. It's a very basic summary of a theory I've developed over 20 years or so.

The first post I made on it is here:

I'd be interested to hear any views and arguments.

top topics
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in