Many of my readers here, have probably heard this argument before, and I repeat it here with a bit more emphasis on the mathematics, which if fully understood will completely dispel any doubt about life arising “by accident” - not only on earth, but anywhere in the known universe. Once this conclusion is proven, then any argument about “evolution” is moot, since if life did not arise by accident, it could not have arisen at all (in the absence of a Creator), and so there would be no life to “evolve”.

            Note that the calculations here, involve each atom in the known universe, and we will generously err on the side of caution by a factor of 10,000, and you will see that creation without a Creator, or design without a designer is patently absurd. We must give a bit of a math lesson here (I promise to keep it as simple as possible) so that the following arguments can be seen in their proper context.

            Powers of 10: When zeros in a number become too numerous to count, mathematicians often express the number as a power. To make it easy, we will only consider Powers of 10. The number 1,000 has only three zeros, so it is easily written and we call it “one thousand”. It can also be written as 1 x 10² which is 1 followed by two zeros, or the number 100. Using Powers of 10 we see that 10 is 10 times 10², because 10³ is the number 1 followed by three zeros = 1,000. The same is also true for the very large numbers like 10⁵⁰, which is the number 1 followed by 50 zeros. 10⁵⁰ is the number of atoms that are estimated to exist in the entire known universe. The number 10⁵¹ is ten times that amount (adding just one more zero). Anyone who has a checking account is fully aware of the significance of zeros, particularly when they appear to the left of the decimal point. To the casual reader, it might not be immediately apparent that there is an astronomical (literally) difference between 10⁵⁰ and 10⁵⁴, but the latter is 10^(54-50) or 10⁴ or 10,000 times as large!

The number 10⁵⁴ represents approximately 10,000 times the number of atoms that are estimated to exist in the universe. For the record, this number also takes into consideration the unaccounted for “dark matter” that is postulated to exist.

            To put this into perspective, even multiple “iterations” or “cycles” of universal collapse and expansion; i.e.: multiple “Big Bangs” are covered by the number 10⁵⁴, and so the “ infinite tries” that evolutionists try to use as a counter-argument to the cold statistics against their theoretical fantasy, are also accounted for.

You must, at this point, consider only DNA as a prerequisite to all life in light of the mathematical odds of a strand of DNA assembling itself “at random” to arrive at the conclusion that life - even a single cell such as an amoeba, could only have come about by the action of an intelligent designer. If you examine the evolutionist's arguments carefully, you will note that there is the presumption of the prior existence of amino acids, and talk of a “primordial soup” that is supposed to have been Earth’s oceans billions of years ago. If this is (or was) so, then only an infinitesimal portion of the universe’s available matter was involved in the “random” mixing of atoms, which would decrease the odds of life arising by the “right combination” of atoms (or elements) by a ratio that is proportional to the atoms in the primordial ocean, and those that were extant in the entire physical universe. Evolutionists characteristically cite “chance” or “random mutations”, but never cite the statistical probabilities of it actually happening. This is no mystery, since statistically, it is impossible for life to have arisen “by chance”.

            The classical (correct) analogy is to postulate that a wristwatch (or an Intel Pentium computer chip) could have just as easily (actually more likely because it is infinitely less complex) happened “by accident”, and so, why not? Why do we not find Pentium computer chips washed up on the beach, or in the “fossil record”? The answer is that we don't find them, because “mother nature” does not create complexity out of chaos.

Life, which is infinitely more complex than a Pentium processor, is no exception. Evolutionists would have you believe otherwise. If the astronauts who first set foot on the moon had sifted through the dust, and found a Rolex watch, what do you think their reaction would have been? More than likely, the first thought that would have occurred to them would have been that the Russians got there first, and one of them lost his watch. That the watch assembled itself at random over billions of years from the primordial interstellar dust would be the last thing they would propose; if they did, they would be laughed to scorn. In fact, even a simple object such as a stone with a few letters carved into it, would have evoked the former reaction rather than the latter, because humans being designers by nature, recognize intelligent design when they see it. How ludicrous then, is it to deny that a Rolex or Pentium processor chip can happen by accident, and in the same breath rationalize that a living being - even a single cell, which is infinitely more complex by millions of orders of magnitude, happened by sheer chance?

            In legal terminology, such sets of beliefs are rationalizations that are called (in Latin) “a non sequitur”, which means, “It does not (logically) follow”.

            As I said at the outset, we need only consider the odds of a strand of DNA putting itself together from the available elements or atoms by accident, to disprove evolution, since it cannot be that life preceded DNA, since DNA is the blueprint by which every living thing is built. To say that DNA evolved from life, or to make any statement to the effect that life can (or had) existed prior to DNA, is a postulate even the most dedicated and articulate evolutionists dare not make, because it would show the irrational lengths he or she is willing to go to, to deny the obvious, and believe the ludicrous. National Geographic magazine, commenting on human DNA, said that the instructions “if written out, would fill a thousand 600 page books”.

A typical cell is only 1/1,000^th of an inch in diameter, and it contains hundreds of interactive parts, including the chromosomes that contain the DNA strand - which is coiled into a space 1/10,000^th of an inch in diameter, and if stretched out lengthwise, is over six feet long.

            All of the DNA in a typical adult’s body – consisting of an average 60 billion cells, would fill only two tablespoons. The strands of DNA, each about 6 feet long, if stretched out and laid end-to-end, would reach from the Earth to the moon 50 million times! I think King David said it best in the Psalms:

            “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well”. – Psalms 139:14 KJV

            DNA is a digital, self-replicating, and self-correcting code. Given the four molecular components (T, C, G, A) of which it is made, human DNA would require 10¹³⁰ “tries” to assemble itself into the instructions to make a human being. The number is actually 10⁸⁰ added to 10⁵⁰ (10⁵⁰ is the estimated number of actual atoms in the universe). We will be extremely generous, and say that there are 10,000 times more atoms available, and use 10⁵⁴, and so this makes the “chances” of DNA occurring by accident orders of magnitude of “impossible” according to the established scientific definition of “impossibility”.

            This calculation also works out if the number of atoms in the universe (estimated) is reduced by similar ratio, since scientists have all agreed that anything that exceeds the odds of one in 10⁵⁰ is absolutely impossible. So we see that even with the billions of years that the universe is said to have been in existence – 10 billion years works out to 10¹⁸ seconds, and even assuming that the “primordial soup” was extant at the very instant the singularity exploded, and the life molecules are combining all during that time, we see that even at the rate of billions of “random chances” taking place every second, only an insignificant portion of the requisite “tries” could have occurred, even in those billions of years.

             Although rationalization from ignorance proves nothing, the mechanism or the process by which life is postulated to have arisen that is proposed by the Darwinist and Evolutionist, fails at the most fundamental level. There is simply no argument that could be put forth, that even if more DNA did indeed assemble itself by an extremely fortuitous set of circumstances, that living creatures over a million different species, could have appeared in the relatively short time known as “the Cambrian era”. Where does the raw DNA obtain the material to assemble a single living being?

            For even an amoeba to have spontaneously come into being of its own is statistically impossible. To have a million different species of living beings (not counting grass, plants, trees, fruit, etc.), “evolving” or appearing simultaneously, increases even those astronomically impossible improbabilities exponentially.

To illustrate this latter point, let us say that you have 10 marbles numbered 0 to 9 in a cardboard box. Blindfolded, you attempt to draw out all the marbles in ascending order. The chances of doing this successfully are 1 in 3,628,800. Each additional species, itself arising simultaneously with another (i.e.: not evolving from something that already exists), doubles the already impossible odds of the first arising “by accident”. Therefore, if the chances of one strand of DNA (say, for an amoeba) happening by chance are one in 10¹³⁰, then the chances of an amoeba DNA and the DNA for a paramecium (both are one cell organisms) happening “by accident” at the same time (one not evolving from the other) is twice that,[1] or one in 20¹³⁰. For a million species, the base number increases by the same proportion. We can safely say then, that chance played absolutely no part in the beginning of life anywhere in the universe. This completely discredits the ludicrous claims of life arriving here on meteors, aliens from other planets, and all other such nonsense that has been bandied about by Evolutionists whose own ridiculous postulates militate against them.

            There are literally hundreds of books that one could read – both pro and con, and each one, makes seemingly convincing arguments for their particular point of view. However, the choice is clear; either life happened by chance, or it happened by design. If there is another possibility, I certainly would like to hear it. If a Rolex watch cannot occur by the random arrangement of available molecules and atoms, then neither can the beings that designed and built the watch have been an accident. If the latter is said to be true, then all that man has done – every building, every work of art, every word spoken, written, or sung, is also the result of the initial accident that assembled man from the inanimate stardust of the primordial universe. You cannot “sit the fence” on this one – not any longer! Failing to explain the primordial Evolutionist postulate; what must be held as the truth in order to make the ensuing diversity of life on earth possible; that over a million different and viable strands of DNA arose practically simultaneously, and each having independently assembled living, self replicating organisms and diverse kinds beings, male and female, and all of which to a certain degree or another are symbiotic, interdependent, and with each species limited to reproducing only “according to its kind”; that it happened “by chance” – there is no need to discuss the ancient “chicken or the egg” paradox.

The argument about the existence of God is not proven by the absence of knowledge, but the existence of a designer is in fact proven by irrefutable evidence of the design, which is, by the Rolex watch definition; “something that could not have happened by chance”.

            Another fabulous argument against Darwinist evolution is that proposed by Michael Behe in his best-selling book “Darwin’s Black Box”. Behe’s argument, which is empirical fact, is that even the smallest bit of life is irreducibly complex – in other words, if one molecule is removed or altered in position, the cell or the protein or the amino acid ceases to function, and thus could not support life.

I have often made the analogy (and people remember it because it’s gross) that a snot-booger that a child picks out of his nose, is thousands of orders of magnitude more complex than the Space Shuttle.[2]

            “Chance” being out of the picture entirely, leaves us with the only remaining postulate. You might say we have even made the “chicken or the egg” paradox moot, and replaced it with an even more complex question, since a chicken or an egg cannot exist without DNA. We have not even discussed how it is possible for every living thing even grass, flowers, and trees – each individual, has its own unique DNA fingerprint – yes, DNA is unique for every tree in the forest; unique for every little guppy and every huge whale in the ocean, each sparrow and every eagle – all of them – each individual creature and each individual bit of life on the planet, are all “alike” or “after their kind” within a species, yet each one exists as if created individually and on its own.

            One can argue not only for the requisite of a designer for a design to have arisen, but for a purpose for the designer to have created the design. The purpose of the designer(s) of the Rolex, was to build the finest timepiece in the world. The design preceded the creation of the thing designed. Each Rolex, although physically identical with thousands of others, has unique serial number. Similarly, every living creature and every living thing designed by God has a DNA sequence that is totally unique. Of the billions of human beings who have ever lived or are now alive, not one individual shares 100 percent of his DNA with another. Each one is a unique individual, which is forensically distinguishable from every other. There is purpose for this design, although I personally cannot say with any real certainty what that purpose could be. However, I believe it is safe to say (tongue-in-cheek) that God does not maintain a DNA database in heaven.

            One could also argue, in light of recent technology – the cloning of sheep, a cat, and (allegedly) a human being, that the clone is “DNA identical” with its “parent”. Although this is true, we have seen that clones did not fare well while they are alive – at least not as well as the “parent”. While this can be an unforeseen shortcoming in the technology, or something that is a factor in the environment, remains to be seen. It perhaps is indicia that physical life – even in animals – is not the entirety of what comprises “a living soul”.

            While scientists try to unravel the mystery of life coded into DNA, there is no accounting for how the code actually becomes a living thing or a human being. Evolution being moot by the fact that life is no accident, all life, or any life arising out of inanimate matter is also impossible because it violates the second law of thermodynamics; or the so-called “entropy” law. This immutable law states that order cannot arise out of chaos. Things in nature, left to their own devices, always go from order to chaos – not the other way around.

            Life, even a simple life form as an amoeba, is a highly complex thing that cannot spontaneously come into existence. Life can only come from a “seed” of prior extant life; life has an “energy” that drives it not only to survive, but also to replicate itself.

A virus is merely a strand of DNA or RNA. It is not alive in the sense that it is a creature by any stretch of the imagination. The AIDS virus is a good example. HIV is not “alive”, and therefore it cannot be killed in the usual sense. HIV, which is simply “code”, requires a living cell of a particular type – a T-cell – in order to reproduce. Similarly, if human DNA could have happened by chance, it would presumably have required at least a cell or biological factories (if you will) in order to copy itself. However in order to have this cell factory, the DNA to construct (and operate) the cell, must have been extant.

            Which came first, a cell, or the DNA to build the cell that can replicate the DNA?

            Another way to look at this paradox is this: a single strand of DNA (viable or not) has one chance in 10¹³⁰ to happen as an “accident”. Once that single strand of DNA, which occupies a space 1/10,000 of an inch in diameter happens, it must find a living cell that can only exist by having its own DNA, and is surrounded by the materials (elements or molecules) with which to construct this “creature” that is coded into its digital (molecular) instructions. Assuming such a cell did exist, this single strand of DNA, which is barely visible with a very powerful microscope, must “happen upon” this requisite cell by (again) “chance”, on a planet capable of sustaining the life form that its instructions dictate it will “assemble” out of all the billions of galaxies in the universe.

            Life – even an amoeba, “by accident”, is such an absurd and preposterous idea that it defies any attempt of eloquence to excoriate. Evolution, which depends upon “accidents of nature”, is only slightly less laughable. Both of these concepts or theories are not only literally astronomically absurd, they are an insult to the intelligence of any scientifically astute individual, but also more importantly, they are an affront to the dignity of human beings, as well as to the living God who created us “in his image and his likeness”.

            I believe it is safe to conclude, that the DNA argument must be resolved prior to any subsequent discussion of “evolution”. It is unlikely that a designer with a design, either had no purpose for the design, or “walked away” from an absolutely mind-boggling piece of handiwork.

            Particle physics and science in general, stands today on the edge of absolute revolution. The “red shift” or Hubbell's law on which Einstein's famous E=mc² formula, and the entire “Big Bang” theory is predicated is challenged by recent discoveries that suggest that the speed of light has been slowing down since the universe first began. If this is so, all the “scientific” textbooks to date are trash; you wasted your money buying them, and wasted your time reading them. What you think you know is wrong. Start over.

            If the speed of light was significantly faster than 186,200 miles[3] per second (currently), then the universe is much younger than the 11 to 20 billion years currently estimated, which gives “chance” less of an opportunity and as I suggested here, to arise by a fortuitous “accident” over eons of time (I should think that there can be no chance smaller than zero).

            Getting back to the original hypothesis that it would take 10¹³⁰ “tries” for DNA molecule to assemble itself by chance, this applies only to the odds of the sequence of the viable code. For this “model”, we assume that the requisite molecules (amino acids and proteins) already exist, and are locally available. However, for the purpose of demonstrating the mathematical absurdity, we do not need to consider this factor, which is practically incalculable, in order to make the point. A design when proven leaves us in search of the designer. There is no question as to the design; this short analysis examines only a single aspect of it – one infinitesimal bit of data, or a minuscule part of the awesome creation miracle all around us.

            Therefore, we are safe in our conclusion that “God did this”, and accomplished it via a process that will forever be beyond the scope of our understanding, and above any fantastic and subjective theoretical speculation.

            At a certain point, both religion and science depend upon faith. A Creationist believes in an infinite intelligence, which directed, orchestrated, and choreographed the creation of the universe, while the evolutionist or the secular humanist believes that in the absence of intelligence with a directed purpose, that everything is possible if the “dice” are thrown a sufficient number of times. Both points of view are religions, really; only the latter is not so-called, because Evolutionists are not gathered together to worship and sing praises to “Lady Luck” or to the laws of chance. Perhaps they should.

See my book: “The Book of NeoGenesis – The Evolution of Mankind From Rocks” on:
www.Net4TruthUSA.com/NeoGenesis.htm

“As for me in my house”, as Joshua wrote, “we will serve the Lord”   – Joshua 24: 15c - KJV

To see a world in a grain of sand

And heaven in a wildflower

Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand

And eternity in an hour.

–        William Blake