“We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel and the anti-Gospel. This confrontation lies within the plans of divine providence. It is a trial which the whole Church… must take up.” Karol Cardinal Wotyla (Sept. 1976)

Saturday, August 9, 2008

Mathematical Proof For the Existence of God:

I have heard this proof for the existence of God a few times. It is a good thing to post this week:

"How did the first protein originate? The theory of evolution has no answer to this question either.Proteins are the building blocks of the cell. If we compare the cell to a huge skyscraper, proteins are the bricks of the skyscraper. Proteins are made up of smaller structures, or molecules, called "amino acids", which are formed by the different combinations made by carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen atoms. There are 500-1,000 amino acids in an average protein.

The important point is that amino acids have to line up in a certain sequence to form a protein. There are 20 different amino acid types used in living organisms. These amino acids do not combine at random to form proteins. Every protein has a certain amino acid sequence and this sequence must be precisely matched. Even the deficiency or the replacement of a single amino acid renders that protein a useless lump of molecules. For this reason, every amino acid must be just at the right place in the right sequence. The instructions for this sequence are stored in the DNA of the cell and, according to them, the proteins are produced.

The theory of evolution claims that the first proteins formed "by chance". Probabilistic calculations, however, show that this is by no means possible. For instance, the probability of the amino acid sequence of a protein made up of 500 amino acids being in the correct order is 1 in 10^950.10^950 is an incomprehensible figure formed by placing 950 zeros after 1. In mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 over 1050 is considered to be almost impossible.Even a single protein cannot form by chance, and there are billions of Protein in human body. and there are billions of people here in this world. Calculation would be [ 10^950 x Number of protein molecules in human body x number of people in the world ever existed ]. Can you imagine this figure. The probability that human life can form by chance is nothing but 0.

Finally, the time necessary [to test all these possible combinations] or the molecule to form was 10^243 billion years.This was far greater than the supposed age of the universe - only about 2 billion years. It was impossible for the universe to have created itself, and for life to randomly form. The only answer left is that there is a creation, and when there is a creation , there is a CREATOR."

Blogger: So to translate all of this scientific/numbers talk, the odds of forming the correct sequence needed for amino acids to form just one life-sustaining protein by random is:

One in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000

The green highlighted number in the beginning represents your chances at winning a Powerball lottery. To think there is not an intelligent, all-powerful Creator behind these numbers, you are aligning yourself with a nil probability. Something no legitimate scientist would ever do.

21 comments:

Lara said...

No doubt, the atheist community already have their calculators in hand...

Alycin said...

Interesting that you posted this today, because I posted something about evolution on my blog this morning also. :)

(I am very much open to the theory of evolution, but I don't believe that is disproves a creator at all. :) )

A Voice in the Crowd said...

Lara, Most calculators don't have enough digits to even cover the powerball.

Alycin, I am open to the theory of evolution as well, but it starting from an 'Uncaused Cause'.

Abraham Lincoln said it beautifully, "I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon the earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how a man could look up into the heavens and say there is no God."

Alycin said...

I asked my friend (who understand evolution much better than I) about this and he said this has nothing to do with evolution and has to do with abiogenesis. Whatever that is. :)

Alycin said...

Also... re:Lara... you don't have to be an atheist to understand and respect the theory of evolution. Evolution does not disprove God, it just suggests that the literal interpretation of Genesis may not be correct.

Dan said...

I guess the atheistic scientists such as P.Z. Myers figure that if one can not test and prove something exsists, then it must therefore NOT exsist. However, this sounds suspiciously like a hypothesis to me, and I challenge P.Z. Myers to test and prove this hypothesis!

Lara said...

Hi Alycin, actually my comment was pointedly aimed at those atheists who pounce on the tiniest hint of the existence of God. I believe there is disbelief in God for different reasons: some individuals simply haven't grown up with any notion of God; for others, the disbelief is willful.

I've heard of seen that argument before for His existence, but I've never heard or seen any convincing counter-argument.

A Voice, I realize that common calculators could never hold that number; my point was simply that once any argument for His existence is presented, disbelievers waste no time in trying to dispel the theory.

In Christ,

Alycin said...

Lara:

It's always interesting to watch the reaction of atheist evolutionists when you point out that the person who first thought up the big bang was a Catholic priest. :)

2-D Man said...

"It's always interesting to watch the reaction of atheist evolutionists when you point out that the person who first thought up the big bang was a Catholic priest."
- Voice

What reaction do you typically get?

Alycin said...

Re: 2-d man

A jaw drop, then a stutter, followed by a "that doesn't matter". Or, a look of confusion, and an "oh", followed by a long pause, and then a change of subject.

2-D Man said...

While I'll admit that I was surprised, there is nothing about the Big Bang that actually points to Yahweh (although the Wikipedia article on LemaƮtre suggests that that was Georges' intent). Further, I'll say that it was LaemaƮtre's training in science that allowed his discovery. His training in religion did not prove useful beyond the coincidence that it caused him to look for a creation-like event. - In effect, I'm saying that it doesn't matter. If it does, how so?

P.S. I feel the need to point out the irony of your comment by informing you that there is more evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for the theory of the primeval atom (the Big Bang).

A Voice in the Crowd said...

So 2-D, let me understand this.

The fact that Laemaitre was a Deist was only a side coincidence in his way of approaching science that led to his Big Bang theory, and it was his training is Science that was solely responsible on this theory.

You’re obviously a little bias.

There are many scientists with greater scientific knowledge than Laemaitre. Why did he come up with this and not them?

You should read some Thomas Aquinas, the “Uncaused Cause”:

"In the world of sensible things, we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible." (Summa Theologica Question 2; Article 3)

This chain of events thinking will get you to a big bang theory, and truth, much quicker than looking for a chimp that can talk.

Great point on the Catholic priest, Alycin!

colbert said...

But is this not true that short of the Second Coming (and it is coming), any evidence of a God will be analyzed beyond recognition by more questions—endless questioning is a form of evasion, yes? Faith and belief are gifts, too, of God. One has to desire to believe.

Evolution is acceptable for the natural world. We, human beings, live in the world, but are not inextricably connected, as evolution suggests.

We evolved from primates, did we? Well, this I can write this with 100% certainty: Sit me down on a beach at sunset alongside every primate now alive and yet to be born and I will be the only creature (figuratively speaking, not literally) who will have the capacity to appreciate the beauty of the sun setting.

Alycin said...

2-d man:

Get over yourself. You aren't "informing" me of anything. I am well versed on the theory of evolution. One of my closest (atheist) friends and I talk about evolution frequently, and even he told me that it's silly to suggest that evolution somehow means there isn't a creator.

It's possible to believe both to be true. And I do.

Anonymous said...

Do evolutionists ever doubt their disbelief as Christians occasionally doubt our belief?

Science considers every imaginable theory for the creation of the universe; meteors, extraterrestrials, apes, big bang, just to name a few; why is the notion of a God so repugnant to them?

Accepting their rejection of the idea wouldn't be so difficult if they so much as considered it, but they won't even allow the idea onto the table for speculation.

I can't help but sense that this clutching on to the idea of evolution is an attempt to avoid the awesome responsibilities that accepting our full humanity entails--one being to account to SOMEONE for our actions after we die.

lara said...

2-D:

"Yahweh?" Is the mere word "God" too difficult to write, even?

He's on Wikipedia, too:

God is most often conceived of as the creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common (love that, "most common") among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, jealousy (?), supernatural, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".

I guess that last sentence, especially, would make some uncomfortable (I know it makes me uncomfortable).

A Voice in the Crowd said...

2-D:

I once argued with a man who took the position the sky is green. I bit on the challenge, because it intrigued me to see where he was coming from. After 15 minutes I realized he was just wasting my time. He was a "professional arguer". He never got to the answers, he just liked moving the questions around and asking them to look intelligent. He majored in breaking down any belief or truth just for the sake of breaking it down.

You remind me of him.

If you can't at least agree that the employer is the one to judge whether the employee is using the time he is being paid for by the employer properly, and not the employee himself, there is no need to go on or post here. You're arguing the sky is green.

2-D Man said...

This is strangely off-topic but whatever, it's your blog, Voice.

Tell me, where have I argued against observable evidence?

Your position doesn't seem to take into account the employee who can provide an expert opinion.

cg said...

When I read the comments from these folks, Voice, you know what comes to mind?

Straining on gnats and swallowing camel, or maybe on seeing the forest through the trees.

Is this just me?

Ron Murphy said...

Hi,

I did post some responses here following your kind invitation to view this post. If they've gone missing I can post them again.

A Voice in the Crowd said...

Ron-

Wish you well, honestly, but would rather not go in a posting tit-for-tat back and forth. It would be pointless. One of the goals of this blog is to share the Catholic Faith not defend it against anything anyone can think of and throw up against a wall.

As mentioned if you want to learn about the Faith, I will be happy.

If you want to send me your personal e-mail via comment, I will not post it, and I can answer any questions you may have on the Catholic Faith. If you truly want to learn. No arguments though, I have that enough 9AM-5PM.

VitC