@Jas3.1 Well, not strictly nothing given that evolution doesn't apply to the origin of life, but yes. Anyway, I said earlier that evolution does not mandate strict improvement, just like the the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent a decrease of entropy in a subset system. The principle of Survival of the Fittest is based on adaptation, not improvement. Thus, the evolutionary tree does not necessarily need to descend "upwards".
However, I feel that it is like the Law of Large Numbers (roll 1000 dice, expect about 167 1s) in that evolution does not mandate individual improvements, but rather overall improvement. (And even that isn't technically true, but rather the most likely result.)
@El'endiaStarman I am aware of this. But you can't claim that the Theory of Evolution is based on genetic evidence. If an intellectually honest scientist were to start objectively with genetic evidence, the clearest (naturalistic) solution would be to assume that all life arose from a super-being that contained every fully-functional gene in existence.
More seriously, there are some versions of Christianity I think are pretty nice, actually. Unfortunately, there's no evidence to support them. There are other versions of Christianity which are absolutely horrifying, and thank goodness there's no evidence to support them.
@El'endiaStarman Claiming that the Theory of Evolution represents the most statistically likely result is baffling. The Theory of Evolution is the most statistically ridiculous invention ever contrived.
@Alypius Here's the rant, as requested: Philosophically there is no hope for man discovering truth unless there is a "God" who knows everything, and is willing and able to reveal truth, and does so. Let's just call Him "Yahweh" and label these things omniscience, benevolence, omnipotence, and grace. Presumably, if you seek this God for truth, given His nature, He would grant it. And He has.
As such, I see the revealed word of God as the only credible standard for truth, and Scripture is our standard for recognizing the word of God. This recognition comes by spiritual regeneration, which builds into His people the necessary presuppositions for understanding and accepting His word (in general, God exists, interacts with man, etc.)
@El'endiaStarman (1) The Theory of Evolution is statistically impossible. (2) The Theory requires "overall improvement" to be shown through experimentation to be the most statistically likely, and it does not.
@Jas3.1 Never, ever, describe the Theory of Evolution as statistically impossible. Because you will always be wrong to do so. Statistically improbable is the claim you may make. (As an example, rolling 1000 1s in a row on a fair dice is statistically improbable [and extremely so], but not impossible.)
Okay, so, what I'm reading about electrons is that electrons are not precisely point particles, but rather standing probability waves. In particular, the lone electron around a hydrogen nucleus has a probability wave function that is a "product of a polynomial series, and exponential and trigonometric functions", meaning that an electron can be literally anywhere in the universe with non-zero probability.
I would imagine the same would hold true for protons and neutrons, and so every single possible configuration of the universe has non-zero probability.
@El'endiaStarman In any case, the probability of matter being created or destroyed, and so on. Not everything is possible. I still doubt that even basic miraculous things are possible just within the laws of nature.
@Alypius Hmm. It seems you're right, actually. Quantum fluctuation only works on extremely short time scales. So, while matter cannot be created or destroyed without a change in energy, its constituent particles can still re-shuffle. Thus, it would still be possible for all of Jesus' miracles (I think) to have happened without any being seeing matter disappearing from another place.
I'm sure I'll catch flack for this, because it does not jive with the Almighty Theory, but for anyone who is interested in some actual science from a primary source, this is pretty good: youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8
@Alypius Yes. I do think randomly murdering other people is wrong. I also think the word other in that sentence is redundant. I don't know what argument you're planning to derive from this, but I strongly suspect you're barking up a non-existent tree.
@Jas3.1 My home computer doesn't turn on these days (it's in a shop being repaired). The speakers on my work computer stopped working a few weeks ago. I may watch that video one of these days.