[Tennessean4Bush]

I just watched this and thought it was fascinating. Peter Robinson does a really good job interviewing and getting each scientist engaged and speaking in a way that is understandable about an abstract but extremely important subject.

[Tennessean4Bush]

Have you seen this interview? I thought it was very informative and fascinating.

[circlecity]

LOL. I literally just finished listening to this 5 minutes ago. Before seeing this thread. Fascinating.

[I got the rope]

BTTT...good stuff.

[Bob434]

William Demski also has shown the mathematical impossibility of macroevolution- It's so far above the upper limits of probability that it renders it impossible- Back in the 70's i think it was- there was also a symposium of the top scientists and mathematicians of the time who also concluded it was mathematically impossible- and we're not talking just 'sort of impossible' it's totally impossible- A ZERO PROBABILITY of happening- and htis is just for even one mutation to occur to even begin to move a species beyond it's own kind by adding new non species specific information in order to so alter the species kind that it starts to becoem another kind altogether- ad in reality, this would have had to happen billions of times- not just once, or a few times- if everything originated from one species, or from single cells-

Here is a bit more info on the impossibility:

http://creationdesign.org/english/chances.html

An occurrence that has more than one chance in 10⁵⁰, it has a statistically zero chance of actually occurring.

"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10⁵⁰ has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence."

I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (New York: NW Research Publications, Inc., 1984), p. 205 (as quoted in Vance Ferrell, The Evolution Handbook (Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont TN, 2001) p. 260

In order to circumvent the problem of statistical zero, evolutionists often argue that "Given enough time, anything can happen." This is not a rational argument. It proves nothing. It is a reference to practically infinite periods of time that lie beyond statistical zero.

"A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of avoiding the conclusion that the probability of a self-producing state is zero ... When for practical purposes the condition of infinite time and matter has to be invoked, the concept of probability is annulled. By such logic we can prove anything ... "

P.T. Mora, The Folly of Probability, as quoted in Origins 13(2):98-104 (1986) Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Lind University, 1986. Emphasis supplied.

In fact the chances of the chance formation of just DNA - much less all of the applications of DNA - are so remote, they are far beyond statistical zero.

"This means that 10⁸⁹¹⁹⁰ DNA molecules, on average, must form to provide the one chance of forming the specific DNA sequence necessary to code 124 proteins. 10⁸⁹¹⁹⁰ DNAs would weigh 10⁸⁹¹⁴⁷ more than the earth ... A quantity of DNA this colossal could never have been formed.

R.L. Wysong, The Creation Evolution Controversy, (Inquiry Press, Midland MI, 1976) p.115, as quoted in The Evolution Handbook (Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont TN, 2001) p. 261. Same Website as above

 

[TexasGator]

“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? “

Intelligent design merely says a higher being directed evolution. It does not replace evolution.

[Kalamata]

Peter Robinson is an excellent interviewer.

[Rashputin]

Watching it now.

Kinda odd it's posted about while it's up on the TV.

[woweeitsme]

Ping

[Grampa Dave]

Darwin’s theory is the original bad science big theory in America.

[IndispensableDestiny]

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.

[aspasia]

[alstewartfan]

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.

[Hot Tabasco]

I'm ignorant in terms of Darwinism but whenever I discussed religion with an Atheist who is now dead, I always asked him if life evolved from the primordial goo, how is it that that literally every species of plant, animal, fish and bird on this planet evolved both a male and a female necessary to continue the species......

[Seruzawa]

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.

[Born to Conserve]

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!

[JudgemAll]

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.

[SisterK]

bfl

[SuperSonic]

If you have 20 minutes take a listen to a synthetic organic chemist's take on the origin of life.

James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained

[DungeonMaster]

I love Berlinski’s cow to whale discussion.

[_Jim]

IMO? A big WOT.