Refutation: Evolution II - "The Apple"

Either way you look at an apple, whether it was made for people or people were made for it, it shows awareness of human needs, and the human body shows awareness of what the apple offers. No matter which "adapted" to which, the question is: the ability to adapt, the fact that the body knew exactly how to digest those apples, how to grow in order to reach the apples, what limbs it needed to reach the apples, etc -- was that accident or intelligence?

That is the issue here - there are only two possibilities: (a) accident or (b) intelligence.

To say that it adapted or evolved just evades the question: adaptation and evolution are either accident or intelligence. Either a string of billions and trillions of perfectly aligned accidents or there is something in the organism that knows what direction it needs to evolve.

And don't forget - the organism needs the ability to be able to "evolve" to begin with. If we were all made of stone we couldn’t "evolve" lungs, etc.

So the proof still remains: the perfectly designed and aligned natural phenomenon could not have, by any reasonable odds, accidentally ended up this way.

And the only alternative to accident is intelligence.

It doesn't matter if the apple "adapted" for people or people "adapted" for the apple. Either way, accident is beyond believable odds.

What is referred to as "likelihood" of life evolving, still amounts to staggering odds. The numbers are too large to describe.

The fact that elements got together and life came from them is itself ridiculous by accident.

And the fact that life "knows" how to evolve is also impossible by accident.

You may not realize the level of coincidence that is needed to do this. Did your stomach "evolve" before the lining that protects it from the acids? If so, it would have been destroyed after the first meal. If the lining evolved before the acids, then nature must also be endowed with prophecy, because it was burdened for millions of years with some useless lining, until the acid evolved.

The chicken egg needed to be the right thickness - not too thick and not too thin - to allow the development and hatching of the chicken, from the start. Or else even one generation of chicken would not have been able to survive.

And even if, theoretically, all this did evolve, the fossil evidence would have to show the billions and billions of species that did not survive - the "non fittest" that fell by the wayside. For every survivable species, you are talking about countless non-survivors. The odds are ridiculous. And the fossil record so far has ONLY COME UP WITH VIABLE LIFE FORMS.

We still have no answer to the question; How does anyone account for the staggering odds of life forming by accident?

What the scientists are saying in essence is, "Yes, but it could happen."
Well, that is of course true, but then you would be unable to prove anything at all, because similarly, "It could always happen."

If G-d Himself would come and reveal Himself to the entire world an say "I am Hashem", that, too, by atheist standard wouldn't prove anything because a happy string of coincidences could account for natural sounds and sights that happened to have coincidently united at the right time and place to cause such a phenomenon.
It could happen.

Proof, in any other context other than atheists talking about G-d, is not expected to reach the level of absolute impossibility. There is no such thing as absolute impossibility. Anything "could" happen, as long as it is not an absurd concept that cannot exist (such as a triangle that is round).
You would send someone to the electric chair if you were a juror and the defendant’s fingerprints were found on the strangled victim's neck. A video of the murder, and perhaps 20 witnesses would make the verdict a no brainier.

But witnesses could lie, a video could be forged - one may even go so far as to claim that some technology exists out there that we are as yet unaware of that synthesized such a realistic video.

And please note, that there is no proof anywhere that says two people cannot have the same fingerprints. In fact, there is absolutely nothing in nature at all that precludes duplicate fingerprints. How in the world would my fingers know, when I am born, the patterns of fingerprints that have already been "placed" on the fingers of every other human being? How do my fingers know which fingerprints are "used" already so as to avoid duplicating them?

The only reason that we assume - yes, assume! - that two sets of fingerprints cannot be alike, or that two snowflakes cannot be alike, is because there are so many billions of possible fingerprint patterns, and snowflake patterns, that the odds of two like patterns existing are so staggering that we don’t even consider it a possibility.
Even though it could happen.

So if you are a juror and the defense attorney claims that nobody "proved" that the fingerprints on the victim's neck were really the defendants - because it could happen that by coincidence two identical sets exist, and that you can't "prove" that the 20 witnesses told the truth (they could have all lied and coincidently made up the same exact details in the story), and that you cant "prove" that the video cannot be faked, he would be laughed out of the courtroom.

Even though it all "could happen".

And you would send the defendant to his death, because you saw proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that this man is guilty.

You have no proof that your desert is not poisoned, but you would take the chance of eating it anyway.

Once the odds reach a certain point, we don't consider the alternative as viable.

Even though your desert could be poisoned.

And so, the amount of "coincidence" and lucky accidents needed to create life are so ridiculously beyond reason, that you’re talking about a universe of people with duplicate fingerprints and continents of totally identical snowflakes.

You're talking about a monkey typing away at a keyboard and producing the Works of Shakespeare. Or more like, the entire stock of the library of congress.

It could happen.

We live our lives laughing at such claims. We would call the ambulance at someone who really believes those things.

Except for the atheist discussing G-d.

It's amazing how, on that level of reasonableness, a person would risk his life and send others to their death, but to avoid eating pork, for that, he needs "absolute proof".

The question is not "can we prove G-d?" The question is, given the proof that we do have, why in the world would anybody NOT believe in G-d???
And to that, so far, no atheist has come up with anything close to a sensible answer.

Source: frumteens.com "mod".

How does Judaism's claim that the world is over 5,700 years old coincide with science?

Torah and science can never contradict each other, because two truths cannot be contradictory. When we find an apparent contradiction between the two, it is generally due to a misunderstanding regarding what one is saying.

Science cannot really prove the age of the universe. All that scientists can do is speculate about the age of the universe by extrapolating from observed phenomena. No scientist alive today can say that he or she has first-hand information regarding the beginning of the universe.

The Torah tells us how old the universe is.

Science tells us how old the universe seems to be.

The scientist that does not believe in G-d has no reason to assume that the age of the world is different than what it appears to be To give a simple example: how old was Adam when he was first created? Was he a baby? Young man? Old man?

Our sages tell us that he had the body and maturity of a 20-year-old man. Now, let us imagine Adam going for a medical exam a day after he was created. The receptionist asks for his age and he answers: “one day”. “You must be kidding me,” she would reply. “You seem to be at least 20 years old!”

They are both right. Adam is saying how old he really is, while the receptionist is estimating his age based on “scientific proof.”

The scientist that does not believe in G-d has no reason to assume that the age of the world is different than what it appears to be. The one who believes in G-d, however, can perfectly accept the fact that the world was created in a mature state and therefore does not contradict the fact that it is really younger than it seems to be.

by Mrs. Sarah Levi, from askmoses.com

So... the world was created by accident?

First, what you must understand, is why the theory of evolution was created. Atheists had to find a way to show that the world was not created by G-d. Therefore, they are putting their money on the odds. They say that it is possible that chemicals flying all around, mutations occurring, and evolving animals who needing to survive would develop organs during the period of billions of years occurred. They claim that little pieces of algae decided to develop and what came from it was male and female, the human eye, all our nerves running perfectly etc. Of course this theory is not convincing but they say it happened because it is the only way to explain the world without G-d, and things could happen against the odds. Hmmm....

Now what if someone told you that the CD player came by accident - billions of years of accidental natural upheavals caused the glass to be formed out of sand, the wires out of copper, the body out of raw aluminum that melded with other metals, that it all accidentally came together, including the logo and the letters on the front, the hinged cover, the playing mechanism, the machinery, the batteries, everything - that it came not through design but through accident --

-- what would you say?

You'd say he's out of his mind. The odds of a CD player coming by accident are psycho.

There are only two ways anything happens in this world: (a) accident or (b) intelligence. If the CD player could not have come by accident, that automatically means it was designed by intelligence. There is no third alternative.

If so, what should one say about finding not If that is what we would say, conclusively and without any room for doubt, about a camcorder, what, then, shall one say about the human eye, which demonstrates plan and purpose compared to which a CD player is no more primitive than a rock.

Light enters your eye, and these cone sensor tools fine tune the color contrast and detail of the image, based on the lighting conditions.

There are seven million of these color sensors in your eye. Seven. Million. All of them work together to give you a realistic color image.

Seven million.

If there's not enough light for them to create color, like in a shadowy place, the color tools give the job over to a different group of black & white image enhancers. There are about 127 million of them.

Meanwhile, at the same time, a computer in your optic nerve receives signals from those 127 million sensors, changes them into code and sends them, translated, through a few hundred thousand nerve fibers that lead to your brain.

How do these millions and millions of tools know how to do all this?

Accident or intelligence?

Why doesn't your eye send the signals to your stomach or foot? How does it know which direction the brain is? How did the optic nerve in your brain know where to create a connection?

But we're not finished yet. While all this is happening inside your eye, the pupil, that black hole on the outside of your eye, is measuring the amount of light it needs to let inside the eye, and it opens and closes, like a lens, to accommodate the exact right amount. A stereo focusing system is busy maintaining maximum image sharpness and a sophisticated image enhancer is clarifying tiny blurs in your vision caused by motion or darkness.

But that's nothing. The image then gets sent to your brain.

Your brain has about ten BILLION nerve cells. Each of these ten billion cells grows between 10,000 - 100,000 fibers in order to connect to other nerve cells in the brain. The total number of these connections, which totally work in tandem with each other, equals one quadrillion. That is: 1,000,000,000,000,000

If you want to know how much that is, here's an example:

Imagine a forest half the size of the entire United States - one million square miles. A thick forest, with 10,000 trees per square mile. If each of these trees had 100,000 leaves, the total amount of tress in the entire forest would equal one quadrillion - the amount of nerve fiber connections in your brain.

Ask an atheist what he would do if he was on a jury and they found the fingerprints of the accused on the victim's throat. The defendant claims that it wasn't him, and there must be someone else with the exact same fingerprints that he has. Plus the 20 witnesses who saw him strangle the victim lied.

You can't PROVE that this guy is guilty. It is possible that there exist in the world 2 like sets of fingerprints. There's nothing scientific that makes sure, when a baby is born, that his fingers make sure to not to duplicate everyone else's prints. the reason why we assume there are not 2 sets of prints the same is that there are so many possible ways for fingerprints to look, the odds of 2 being the same are staggering.

If the atheist will not believe that two sets of fingerprints are possible to be the the same, that he would send someone to the electric chair and consider it proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was indeed the defendant and not someone else who killed the victim (witnesses can lie, too, you know), ask him then, how he can believe that the human brain came by accident - if he believes that, he should surely believe in the possibility of a whole slew of people with the same sets of prints.

-Thank you "moderator" of frumteens.com for your excellent post on this topic.