Posted on 07/28/2019 10:50:40 AM PDT by Tennessean4Bush
Recorded on June 6, 2019 in Italy.
Based on new evidence and knowledge that functioning proteins are extremely rare, should Darwin’s theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed or replaced with a theory of intelligent design?
Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books).
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
“Please read post 8. “
LOL. I wrote #8.
I have a 100% winning street with lottery tickets. I never buy them so I win $2 every time I go into a convenience store and don’t buy one.
The problem with explaining highly unlikely events is that everything in the past is null. The chance of you winning $758.7 million in lotto is almost nil, yet there stood a winner. The chance of the universe popping into existence from absolute nothingness is beyond nil, yet here we are to talk about it.
I’m not discrediting a supreme being putting all in motion. Far from it; God plays with loaded dice.
Yes, but I think making the argument the way you are, actually makes the opposite point you intend. If the game is a lottery, it is a game of rules and order, presided over by someone with authority. Otherwise, there are no winners, no? Your analogy is flawed.
Thanks for posting this.
Texas Gator
you wrote:
“Intelligent design merely says a higher being directed evolution. It does not replace evolution.”
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
Actually “intelligent design” says, “[ ]”.
IOW - intelligent designs says nothing. It is speechless!
Advocates for intelligent design might say all kinds of things.
link is 404 error.
Thank you for introducing the national treasure Stephen C. Meyer to FR! The man is a super genius who possesses the gift of speaking in lay terms to help you understand the complex.
My bad. Post #7
No, it is not. The lottery is just one example. What are the odds of somebody being in a plane crash and surviving? Fairly poor, but to the survivors, it does not matter. Their statistical state is they survived. Same goes with earthquakes or any other event after the fact.
Back to the original post, challenging Darwin's theory mathematically is pointless. His theory was left behind in the 1930's when evolutionary biology became a discipline. It hasn't stayed put. It's evolving too, with molecular biology and gene sequencing playing a huge role in understanding.
The chance of one functioning protein molecule forming by chance is beyond impossible. Say the oceans of the Earth were perfect incubators and protein chains were randomly forming at a billion trillion trillion chains per second. You could take amoeba traveling at one foot per year. You could place a one atom payload on that amoeba and have it carry that atom from one end of the observable universe to the other and you still wouldn’t have enough time. In fact that amoeba could haul the entire universe one atom at a time 56 times to have enough time.
That’s for one protein. To have a living cell you have to have an entire array of molecules placed together. It is impossible.
Last night my 14-year-old daughter repeated this nugget: The odds of winning the lottery are the same as experiencing 235 near lightning strikes.
It occurred to me that no one has ever been “almost struck” by lightning 235 times, nor ever will be. OTOH, people do win the lottery. The probability of the two, therefore, cannot be equal, no matter what statistical analyses one may apply.
Still, she was willing to accept this factoid as true, just on, I guess, the premise that “big = big.”
It’s cute when nut-job creationist wackos put on an air of scientific rationality. It’s funny too. It’s sad they’re so ridiculously crazy and don’t know it, but it’s funny too. They talk to each other acting just like the grownups, but we all know their diapers need changing — so cute!
Meyer: "The odds are prohibitive."
Not sure what is worst, a creationist appropriating God or an atheist darwinist with zero knowledge of science but only conjecture appropriating science.
Frankly, Darwinism is a dialectic moralistic evaluation of adequacy of life, and not at all scientific. Not to mention the gross semantic error of confusing history with process cycle of production from raw materials to finished product. The latter is a sequential aggregation of steps that is irrelevant of the time needed for these steps to take place. The question is what is the accelerant that can make this sequence so much faster than any form of heat transfer or slow curing would allow.
What's "cute" are ad hominem attacks like this one with nothing to back it up--or even an argument refuting what they are saying.
This is a red herring. Evolution is not solely based on probabilities.
Aha, the evolution of matter! Adaptation and advantage figured out long ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.