Seriously, it takes more faith to believe evolution then it does to believe in God. At least in believing in God we have a owner's manual, His Holy word in the Bible but all we have with evolution is what a bunch of people just think happened.
The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away. Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people-until it is examined quantitatively, that is! For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense. Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare-not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most. But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts." The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021. All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!
Epic Michael if 1000 steps backwards and one step forward isn't progress then I don't know what is. 😎 But give the evolutionists credit, the "de" in de-evolution is silent.
Read the comments below and all i have to say is, Who cares! So what if you cant see the slides, pictures, or the speaker. These people (videos 1-7) are giving Valuable information that can saves souls. Take notes and go convert someone. Have a Sunday meeting with family, friends, strangers and share the info. Look at the bigger picture here.
1. That's NOT all you have to say, clearly, as you proceed to say other things. 2. In answer to your question, clearly the people who complained about the lack of visuals care. I hope this helps you to better formulate comments in the future.
@@shoshanathorpe4606 No, not "only," odd that you would presume that. Sorry, I underestimated the extent of your ignorance. Hoped I could help, but perhaps that's not possible. Best wishes.
@@thomaserickson568 Simmer down with the boastfulness, my friend. Shoshana’s point still stands. The audio information is sufficient to bring those with little a priori knowledge of biology to a very feasible understanding of the content at hand, namely the issues regarding Darwinian/macro-evolution. Whether one needs to know what a nucleotide is, or what natural selection is, or what the difference is between macro- versus microevolution - the answers to these things is merely a few douzen keystrokes away. Those who want a more in-depth, or even visual, understanding of the topics can so very easily.
@11:00 into the video: I wish more Christians and Catholics knew about such things like Pope Benedict holding a conference and inviting top Cardinals, theologians and biological evolution professors to discuss the current state of that theory. We are simply not told about such things or their findings and conclusions (e.g. that evolutionary theory cannot be called a scientifically verified fact). We are constantly getting only the impression that the Church simply more or less accepts the theory as scientifically established fact when the top Churchmen - and the previous Pope no less - do not believe that to be the case. Time, effort and money go into holding these conferences yet their fruit is withheld, it seems. I think the faithful have the right to know about such conferences and their conclusions, especially in the judgment of the Pope (no less!) or those authorized by the Church to make conclusions and summaries that are themselves endorsed by the Church/the Holy See, especially when they are of such momentous importance as the subject of evolution. Evolution, cosmogony, natural(istic) earth history and human history (especially as it touched on or relates to sacred history) should be reviewed from time to time for the state of the art/science and conclusions made from the evidence and modern findings so we can get an idea of the mind of the Church as it relates to these important subjects.
To those who do not need visual .... M sure that there are many people whose imagination is limited as I am we are more visual so don't Condemn that we ask for it. God Bless
Since the definition of evolution is an unguided chain of events, theistic evolution is an oxymoron; since it is an unguided change of events, atheistic evolution is a redundancy, evolution is, ipso facto, atheistic.
The main difference is that micro evolution is small adaptations using the same information and the species isnt changing For macro evolution you need a lot of changes to gradually change a species and that is the problem. The impossibility of so many changes to become present that arent damaging and spread throughout a species that produces significant change in a timeframe that isnt absurd. For malaria the parasite reproduces so much so fast that in that time you get only one or two mutations but it is still malaria jist a little different. With trillions of offspring each having mutations, only one or two managed to last enough onto the next generations to resist an antibiotic. For other creatures like fish, the trillions of offspring would require so much time to appear that it is simply absurd and these changes dont even change the species to begin with so that would require EVEN MORE time. So the microevolution does have evidence but it is not a change in species only an adaptation to environmental conditions usually from one mutation. There's a caterpillar whose name i forget that can imitate the appearance of a SNAKE to defend itself. How in millions of years would THAT come about, for a caterpillar's tail to perfectly copy a snake's head to defend itself. Its just absurd to say it all happened by chance or even natural selection. Its too specific and way too unlikely
This must b made into a "Common Catholic Dogma". Yes Sir U heard me "RIGHT", this must become a " Spiritual Curriculum " as many Catholic Priest themselves pronounce Adam n Eve as a mythological story,comparing it to Gilgamesh. If there a 2 Schoolof thoughts then how can the Sheep b shepherded by their Shepherds who Promote mythological gilgamesh over the Petfect Design Creator. 🙏 Sir also being a Pro-Life ambassador in perfect harmony with our Creator. God Bless 🙌 U n use U to Simply n Edify the mysteries of God Centered Creation. ✝️✝️✝️ 🙏
The only thing I don't like about this video is "Americans are the only ones who reject evolution because they see design" Americans are always the heroes even in Catholic teaching. Sick!
elijah7k "...Americans are always the heroes even in Catholic teaching. Sick!" Yes, burdensome as that may be, the facts, however, support the claim. At this time, is seems the center mass design proponents are almost exclusively 'murican. Gotta give credit where credit is due.
You have to admit it's almost hilarious that for atheists the most "backward" Western country when it comes to the population's beliefs (most skeptical of evolution and all sorts of modern, allegedly scientific beliefs) is by far the most populous, prosperous, powerful and influential on earth - way by far. I think that's why atheistic leftists completely lose their minds over American elections whenever conservatives or more or less faithful Christians win.
![NISAMANEE - TADA (ท้าดา) [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hcQHEPMmJpU/mqdefault.jpg)
What a grave injustice to God and mankind to have these truths suppressed. This video needs to be shared widely.
Yes it is.
Seriously, it takes more faith to believe evolution then it does to believe in God. At least in believing in God we have a owner's manual, His Holy word in the Bible but all we have with evolution is what a bunch of people just think happened.
It's a shame that the slides or the full presentation are not available.
You can find the slides here www.screencast.com/users/T_Murnane with video
The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution
According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.
Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people-until it is examined quantitatively, that is!
For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare-not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.
But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.
All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!
Epic Michael if 1000 steps backwards and one step forward isn't progress then I don't know what is. 😎
But give the evolutionists credit, the "de" in de-evolution is silent.
Excellent, excellent, excellent .
The enemies of truth will not hear, nor tolerate this.
Read the comments below and all i have to say is, Who cares! So what if you cant see the slides, pictures, or the speaker. These people (videos 1-7) are giving Valuable information that can saves souls. Take notes and go convert someone. Have a Sunday meeting with family, friends, strangers and share the info. Look at the bigger picture here.
1. That's NOT all you have to say, clearly, as you proceed to say other things. 2. In answer to your question, clearly the people who complained about the lack of visuals care. I hope this helps you to better formulate comments in the future.
@@thomaserickson568 You comment only to help me to make better comments in the future?
@@shoshanathorpe4606 No, not "only," odd that you would presume that. Sorry, I underestimated the extent of your ignorance. Hoped I could help, but perhaps that's not possible. Best wishes.
@@thomaserickson568 Simmer down with the boastfulness, my friend.
Shoshana’s point still stands. The audio information is sufficient to bring those with little a priori knowledge of biology to a very feasible understanding of the content at hand, namely the issues regarding Darwinian/macro-evolution. Whether one needs to know what a nucleotide is, or what natural selection is, or what the difference is between macro- versus microevolution - the answers to these things is merely a few douzen keystrokes away. Those who want a more in-depth, or even visual, understanding of the topics can so very easily.
@@brahhuzzah3743 No. Wrong. You have a lot of growing up to do, "my friend."
I would appreciate if someone could help me finding through sending the link here of the 3 of 7 of this. Thanks!
This is very interesting but it would be immensely more if we could see all you talk about
Watch a presentation by dr Stephen Meyer; plenty of visuals regarding cells and ID
@11:00 into the video: I wish more Christians and Catholics knew about such things like Pope Benedict holding a conference and inviting top Cardinals, theologians and biological evolution professors to discuss the current state of that theory. We are simply not told about such things or their findings and conclusions (e.g. that evolutionary theory cannot be called a scientifically verified fact). We are constantly getting only the impression that the Church simply more or less accepts the theory as scientifically established fact when the top Churchmen - and the previous Pope no less - do not believe that to be the case. Time, effort and money go into holding these conferences yet their fruit is withheld, it seems. I think the faithful have the right to know about such conferences and their conclusions, especially in the judgment of the Pope (no less!) or those authorized by the Church to make conclusions and summaries that are themselves endorsed by the Church/the Holy See, especially when they are of such momentous importance as the subject of evolution. Evolution, cosmogony, natural(istic) earth history and human history (especially as it touched on or relates to sacred history) should be reviewed from time to time for the state of the art/science and conclusions made from the evidence and modern findings so we can get an idea of the mind of the Church as it relates to these important subjects.
I wish we could see the slides and videos. Are there links to the videos?
Yes I wish you would video with this but very interesting it would help for my feeble mind
To those who do not need visual .... M sure that there are many people whose imagination is limited as I am we are more visual so don't Condemn that we ask for it. God Bless
Olga Crego I see it... pretty amazing
Who are the speakers?
Excellent!
Since the definition of evolution is an unguided chain of events, theistic evolution is an oxymoron; since it is an unguided change of events, atheistic evolution is a redundancy, evolution is, ipso facto, atheistic.
I understand Micro Evolution as adaptation, am I wrong or is that just another definition of the same thing?
The main difference is that micro evolution is small adaptations using the same information and the species isnt changing
For macro evolution you need a lot of changes to gradually change a species and that is the problem. The impossibility of so many changes to become present that arent damaging and spread throughout a species that produces significant change in a timeframe that isnt absurd. For malaria the parasite reproduces so much so fast that in that time you get only one or two mutations but it is still malaria jist a little different. With trillions of offspring each having mutations, only one or two managed to last enough onto the next generations to resist an antibiotic. For other creatures like fish, the trillions of offspring would require so much time to appear that it is simply absurd and these changes dont even change the species to begin with so that would require EVEN MORE time.
So the microevolution does have evidence but it is not a change in species only an adaptation to environmental conditions usually from one mutation.
There's a caterpillar whose name i forget that can imitate the appearance of a SNAKE to defend itself. How in millions of years would THAT come about, for a caterpillar's tail to perfectly copy a snake's head to defend itself. Its just absurd to say it all happened by chance or even natural selection. Its too specific and way too unlikely
I am a cradle Catholic and I was taught that Adam and eve are our first parents
@@brianruane8505 stick to your dumb belief or be baptize
16:18
This must b made into a "Common Catholic Dogma". Yes Sir U heard me "RIGHT", this must become a " Spiritual Curriculum " as many Catholic Priest themselves pronounce Adam n Eve as a mythological story,comparing it to Gilgamesh. If there a 2 Schoolof thoughts then how can the Sheep b shepherded by their Shepherds who Promote mythological gilgamesh over the Petfect Design Creator. 🙏 Sir also being a Pro-Life ambassador in perfect harmony with our Creator. God Bless 🙌 U n use U to Simply n Edify the mysteries of God Centered Creation. ✝️✝️✝️ 🙏
I know you don't like theistic evolutionists and Intelligent Design advocates BUT THEYRE BETTER THAN HARDCORE ATHEISTIC MATERIALISTS
I thought Intelligent Design was one of the proofs for God's existence. The speaker even advocates for it. Am I missing something?
The only thing I don't like about this video is "Americans are the only ones who reject evolution because they see design"
Americans are always the heroes even in Catholic teaching. Sick!
elijah7k "...Americans are always the heroes even in Catholic teaching. Sick!"
Yes, burdensome as that may be, the facts, however, support the claim. At this time, is seems the center mass design proponents are almost exclusively 'murican.
Gotta give credit where credit is due.
You have to admit it's almost hilarious that for atheists the most "backward" Western country when it comes to the population's beliefs (most skeptical of evolution and all sorts of modern, allegedly scientific beliefs) is by far the most populous, prosperous, powerful and influential on earth - way by far. I think that's why atheistic leftists completely lose their minds over American elections whenever conservatives or more or less faithful Christians win.