Materialists, Jehovah's Witnesses & Biblical Christianity (page 3)

cofty

Perry - Jgnat just exposed the fallacy of your OP and yet you just carry on as if it didn't happen.

Do you bother to read your own thread?

You've got problems of your own. I wouldn't worry about others. Genetic algorithims prove that it would require more DNA than could fit in the entire universe to code 124 proteins just to provide ONE chance to get the coding right. And then, this does not even begin to address the supreme problem of the storage system of DNA itself whereby Harvard graduates have stuffed an amazing 700 Terabytes of information into one gram of DNA. What came first, the information or the storage system? Why?

Try to imagine a bridge developing under Darwin's Theory. Until you can walk across the bridge the wasted structure detracts rather than adds to its success, yet the bridge is far too complex to be built in a single generation. Now, if Genetic Algorithms can't even build a simple bridge how could they possibly build the human eye?

cofty

You've got problems of your own. I wouldn't worry about others.

What is that supposed to mean?

Genetic algorithims prove that it would require more DNA than could fit in the entire universe to code 1 24 proteins just to provide ONE chance to get the coding right.

That sentence makes no sense. If you are going to copy-paste at least take a minute to tidy it up.

You are easily impressed by words you don't understand.

If you could phrase a question and explain it in your own words maybe a conversation would be possible.

Perry

What came first, the information or the storage system? Why?

We are waiting Cofty.

cofty

I already told you there is no "information". That is just a metaphor.

If you actually want a conversation explain your questions clearly in your own words. Copy-paste or badly paraphrased copy-paste is not allowed.

Apognophos

Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 10 50 .

I don't know what "probability factors" or "genetic algorithms" are. But if the above probability represents the number of possible sequences in 84 nucleotides, then it's an erroneous calculation because no one is saying that anything nearly as complex as modern DNA came into being on its own. Additionally, there's a bigger underlying fallacy, which is to suggest that everything had to be just so and there is no other acceptable path for life to have developed, which is not what scientists think.

In even simpler terms, imagine that a small space rock lands in a certain spot in the world -- say, a small town in Indiana, behind the local KFC. Someone points to the rock laying on the pavement and says, "That's incredible! What are the odds that this rock would land right here!?" Well, the odds were very small from the standpoint that it could easily have landed anywhere. Most people, however, would not be impressed by his statement or the place the rock landed in. Why not? Because as long as the rock landed somewhere on dry, inhabited land (maybe 1:5 odds), it could be observed by a person and pronounced amazing. There was no need for the rock to land in that one spot.

Scientists believe that the universe may have self-ordering properties, and that the development of life is almost a certainty according to those laws. Looking at the odds of an exact sequence is therefore completely missing the point.

jgnat

I feel invisible.

cofty

Jgnat - Perry's ability to ignore other posters is directly proportional to how damaging their posts are to his superstions.

You demolished his OP so you get totally ignored. Congrats!

LisaRose

aRose, it's good that you are forgetting all the nonsense you were taught as a Witness, but you got your nonsense wrong :-) The creative days were considered to be 7000 years each. That was the basis for the 1975 hullabaloo: Adam's creation in 4026BCE + 6000 = 1975CE (6000 being the length of the current day, God's day of rest, minus the 1000 years of Jesus' reign that they believed were going to occur at the end of this current day of creation). It was only mankind which the JWs held to be 6000 years old; possibly Russell thought differently, but that would have been a long time ago in a religion far, far away

Oh sugar, you are so right, I don't know what I was thinking. I guess it's a good sign, I am forgetting everything I was brainwashed into believing. It's still not what Perry said.

Jgnat, great fix for the table.

cofty

Off to bed. If you actually want a conversation about "information" Perry let me know. I will look back tomorrow.

Remember - NO COPY-PASTE ALLOWED!

Materialists, Jehovah's Witnesses & Biblical Christianity

Share this