More scientific probability and the Genesis account

The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis
creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The
account lists 10 major stages in this order:

(1) a beginning;
(2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water;
(3) light;
(4) an expanse or atmosphere;
(5) large areas of dry land;
(6) land plants;
(7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning;
(8) sea monsters and flying creatures;
(9) wild and tame beasts, mammals;
(10) man.

Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the
chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you
picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive
order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the
writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the
facts from somewhere is not realistic.

source : Jehovahs witnesses

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis
creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The
account lists 10 major stages in this order:

(1) a beginning;
(2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water;
(3) light;
(4) an expanse or atmosphere; ...[text shortened]... rder without getting the
facts from somewhere is not realistic.

source : Jehovahs witnesses

1) You're vastly overstating the need for knowledge of the actual events. For example, putting "the beginning" at position one does not really require divine inspiration. Putting land plants after dry land isn't exactly rocket science either.

2) Some of the chronology is simply wrong. Plants where growing before the sun and moon could be seen from Earth ?

To add to Barts comments, you must also take into account that you picked 10 things that you think the writer got right and ignored the 101 things he got wrong.
If we instead do the calculation for the probability of a writer randomly getting 10 out of 111 things in the right order, then the result changes considerably.

Of course the really funny thing about this thread is that you dispute sciences findings based on the Genesis account disagreeing with science. You cant have it both ways.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis
creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The
account lists 10 major stages in this order:

(1) a beginning;
(2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water;
(3) light;
(4) an expanse or atmosphere; ...[text shortened]... rder without getting the
facts from somewhere is not realistic.

source : Jehovahs witnesses

Science does not agree that these stages occurred in this order, and any claim that it does comes from la la land. For starters the sun came into existence before the earth, which then renders 2-7 in you list nonsensical.

Methinks this is a tongue in cheek OP.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Science does not agree that these stages occurred in this order, and any claim that it does comes from la la land. For starters the sun came into existence before the earth, which then renders 2-7 in you list nonsensical.

sigh why dont you people know anything?

“If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of
the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the
tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow
rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.” This geologist,
Wallace Pratt, also noted that the order of events—from the origin of the oceans, to the
emergence of land, to the appearance of marine life, and then to birds and
mammals—is essentially the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time.

Originally posted by Barts
1) You're vastly overstating the need for knowledge of the actual events. For example, putting "the beginning" at position one does not really require divine inspiration. Putting land plants after dry land isn't exactly rocket science either.

2) Some of the chronology is simply wrong. Plants where growing before the sun and moon could be seen from Earth ?

sigh, you seem to be having trouble with the term, 'light became discernible', its a
common mistake of the uninitiated,

Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The
Hebrew word there used for “light” is ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on
the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to maohr, which means the source of the
light.

Rotherham, in a footnote on “Luminaries” in the Emphasised Bible, says: “In ver. 3,
'ohr', light diffused.” Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word 'maohr' in verse
means something “affording light.” On the first “day” diffused light evidently
penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been
seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth.
Now, on this fourth “day,” things apparently changed.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh, you seem to be having trouble with the term, 'light became discernible', its a
common mistake of the uninitiated,

Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The
Hebrew word there used for “light” is ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on
the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to maohr, w ...[text shortened]... layers still enveloping the earth.
Now, on this fourth “day,” things apparently changed.

You're claiming a permanent cloud cover that obscured the sun until after the first plants grew on land ? I'd like to see some scientific sources for that.

Originally posted by Barts
You're claiming a permanent cloud cover that obscured the sun until after the first plants grew on land ? I'd like to see some scientific sources for that.

no i am stating that there is a difference between a source of light and an observers
perception of that light. You have confused the two, you want a scientific source for
that?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh why dont you people know anything?

“If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of
the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the
tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow
rather closely much of the language of ...[text shortened]... to birds and
mammals—is essentially the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time.

Wow, you've found one quote from one scientist from 1928 to back up your claim. Forgive me if i appear underwhelmed by the hugeness of your evidence.

Where does the Bible say that the earth was 'enshrouded in heavy gases and water'?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Originally posted by FMF
Methinks this is a tongue in cheek OP.

It appears not, he's just copying and pasting from a 1985 Watchtower publication entitled - Life--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or By Creation?.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Wow, you've found one quote from one scientist from 1928 to back up your claim. Forgive me if i appear underwhelmed by the hugeness of your evidence.

Where does the Bible say that the earth was 'enshrouded in heavy gases and water'?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Would you like some more, what about Fred Hoyle? Sir Fred I hasten to add? the Bible
does not mention, specific gases explicitly, its understood that this is the case.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Would you like some more, what about Fred Hoyle? Sir Fred I hasten to add? the Bible
does not mention, specific gases explicitly, its understood that this is the case.

If the Bible doesn't say that the earth was 'enshrouded in heavy gases and water', why are you claiming that it does?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
If the Bible doesn't say that the earth was 'enshrouded in heavy gases and water', why are you claiming that it does?

I am not saying that at all, i am saying that it is the geographical sequence of events,
the Bible, just by some strange coincidence happens to follow this geographical
sequence of events in the book of Genesis, a subtle but never the less important point.