Evolution is a mathematical impossibility

[Tx Redneck]

http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/religion/artikel.php?ID=197854

"It is good to keep in mind ... that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micromutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted."
(Prof. R Goldschmidt PhD, DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. in Material Basis of Evolution Yale Univ. Press)

• "The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency."
(Prof. J Agassiz, of Harvard in Methods of Study in Natural History)

• "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words."
(Lord Kelvin, Vict. Inst., 124, p267)

• "The best physical evidence that the earth is young is the dwindling resource that evolutionists refuse to admit is dwindling ... the magnetic energy in the field of the earth's dipole magnet ... To deny that it is a dwindling resource is phoney science."
(Thomas Barnes Ph.D., physicist)

• "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it ... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution ... if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
(Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist and mathematician, Cambridge University)

Saved and Texan by the Grace of God, Redneck by choice.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePag....php?ID=197854

Well, let's take a look at this.

"It is good to keep in mind ... that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micromutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted."
(Prof. R Goldschmidt PhD, DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. in Material Basis of Evolution Yale Univ. Press)

Written in 1940. DNA's role in heredity wasn't confirmed until 1953. Safe to say science didn't have a full grasp on the issue.

"The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency."
(Prof. J Agassiz, of Harvard in Methods of Study in Natural History)

J Agassiz doesn't show up in any searches.

However, a Lous Agassiz from the 19th century did lecture at Harvard and is credited with "Methods of Study in Natural History" written in 1861. Two years after Origin of Species. Irrelevant to today.

"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words."
(Lord Kelvin, Vict. Inst., 124, p267)

Lord Kelvin, as in William Thomson born in 1824?

The Victoria Institute was founded in 1865 as a response to Origin of Species. It was biased then, and it's laughable that creationists should think it's some authority for refuting evolution now.

"The best physical evidence that the earth is young is the dwindling resource that evolutionists refuse to admit is dwindling ... the magnetic energy in the field of the earth's dipole magnet ... To deny that it is a dwindling resource is phoney science."
(Thomas Barnes Ph.D., physicist)

What? There's incontrovertible evidence that the magnetic poles wander, vary in strength, and have switched direction entirely numerous times over the course of history. Based on evidence in the geological record, the magnetic field is stronger now than in the past.

Additionally, Barnes did not earn a Ph.D., his doctorate was honorary, awarded by a Christian university. His arguments are based on a preconcieved idea - he was a creationsit and looked for evidence to support creation, not a conclusion that creation was supported by any evidence. This is pseudoscience.

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it ... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution ... if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
(Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist and mathematician, Cambridge University)

This guy is an astrophsyicist. How is he qualified to speak on biogenesis?

I'll allow that his familiarity with probability theory perhaps makes sense as a basis for argument, but then one must question the conditions on which he developed his estimate.

Here's a paper written by a Mormon* that refutes Hoyles methodology and concludes with a caution to Christians against looking for signs of intelligent design.

http://www.dhbailey.com/papers/dhb-probability.pdf

Probability calculations should be a tool to help us calibrate the diversity of life and the extent to
which various lineages may have diverged from common ancestors. Instead, they often are used as
a tool to manipulate scientifically unsophisticated audiences. Further, probability-based arguments
for a Creator are, as far as I can tell, merely another instance of the “God of the gaps” approach to
theology — the shopworn philosophy that God can be found in the gaps of what currently remains
unexplained in science. Those who have adopted this approach over the centuries have invariably
been disappointed as scientific knowledge fills more and more of the remaining “gaps”.

Nowadays the catchphrase for this approach is “Intelligent Design Theory” (IDT). The idea is that
such remote improbabilities can only be overcome by a designer. Many in the IDT movement see
that designer as the God of the Bible, and design in nature as proof of the existence and direct
involvement of God in minute details of everyday life. But it is wise to keep in mind the common
experience of many religious believers, who have found that seeking “proofs” for the existence of
God (scientific or otherwise) is an ineffective and often counter-productive route to faith. Jesus of
Nazareth frequently commented on the dangers of seeking “signs” (Matthew 12:39, 16:4; Mark
8:12; Luke 11:29). Sounds like good advice to me.

[talisman]

Thank you, Drew. Lol!

[lowthreeohz]

Damn. that has to sting a little.

[Superwho]

Easily the greatest boosh I've witnessed on these forums. Reddit worthy. Good day, sir.

[RCITNet]

Bazinga

Sent from my DROID RAZR

[CWO]

nice.

[mustang1200]

Bazinga

Sent from my DROID RAZR

Appropriate.

[VaderTT]

LoL! awesome!!!!

[sc281]

Wow. And here i thought a boosh of this caliber was a mathematical impossibility.

[jdgregory84]

Evolution is mathematically impossible and God isn't.....interesting.

[God]

Well, let's take a look at this.

+10 internets for you

Evolution is mathematically impossible and God isn't.....interesting.

Anything is possible

[Craizie]

• "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it ... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution ... if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
(Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist and mathematician, Cambridge University)

[Lloyd] So you're telling me there's a chance?! [/Lloyd]