So if we are able to analyze the brain of Albert Einstien, that would mean that we are smarter than Einstein? Fallacious.
Strawman. You changed the condition to create a false conclusion.
So where would you get the genetic information from? How do you get information from a mindless and blind process? Can a mindless and blind person give you any information? What you have with DNA is codes, information, instructions...how can you get all of this from a mindless process?? And not only that, it is more than just having all the of the "stuff", you have to place every single incredient in a specified order so that you can get the desired result. This is distinct from the cosmic ingredients, which also had to be fine tuned and orchestrated in the right order.
God could have made that stuff. Believe that if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that evolution is true and is happening.
Bill Gates said "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised" (Bill Gates The Road Ahead 1996 pg 228 Revised). And that is coming from a person that made billions off of software programs. Not to mention the fact that in order to build any kind of software progam that is coded, intelligent design is absolutely necessary.
Ah.
He also said, "I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system, and possibly program, of all time."
He was wrong.
So you just have no credibility.
Your lack of knowledge and even the will to take some time to think and analyze what's being said to you gives you close to none as well.
The information that is in ALL the chromosomes of one human being...if you typed it out, would fill enough books to fill the Grand Canyon 78 times. (Walt Brown In the Beginning pg 62).
The memory capacity of all harddisks in the world is around 300 exabyte. That's 300 and 20 zeros behind. If you did the same as you suggested about the DNA above, you'd fill Earth. So computer memory wins.
That is the INSTRUCTIONS to make one human being. King David said "I am fearfully and wonderfully made" Psalm 139:14. And he said this without peeking through one microscope.
Your evidence is a quote from someone called King David more than 2,000 years ago? Yeah. He was a scientist. He also cheated on his wife. That makes it right because he was so smart. Right? That's how you argue.
Now you can sit there and be as intellectually dishonest as you like and down-play it all you want, but so far, not only has science been able to tell us how to get life from nonliving material, but you have to be able to show where does all of this specified information come from?
From the Universe and Nature. That's why God is an intricate and integrated part of existence and life. You can't separate God to an external entity detached from the very process of life itself.
That is a lie, Ouro. One protein molecule has so much information that the entire time since the Big Bang would not give you all of the resources you need to generate that same molecule by chance.
There are more stars in the universe than there are cells in your body, so you're obviously unaware of the grandness of the universe.
The probability is astronimical, and I find it amazing that you believe that this could occur not only be a blind and mindlessprocess, but by random chance. So improbability x improbablity will only give you even more improbability. That is the price of atheism...improbability.
Atheism? I'm not suggesting atheism here. I'm suggesting reasonable theistic evolution. You're the one denying God's power to use evolution.
Besides, the probability for humans to share ERVs and transposons with the chimpanzees are ever worse. It's completely improbable that it was by chance. God must've intentionally created flawed genes in humans and chimps, identical, and just as unnecessary in both, to create a false trail of relationship. That means God is a liar and deceiver... or... Evolution is true. Your choice. A lying God or a truthful God using evolution?
Are they making bucks because they've found out how to get life from nonlife? No.
?
That wasn't the point. Slow down and try to comprehend what you're reading. You're going in 300 mph without thinking about what you're arguing.
Even if you get one amnio acid, that is still far from life, Ouro. It take 75 amino acids to form a protein, at least. Then you need the right bonds between the acids, and since they come in right handed and left handed versions, you need only the left handed ones...then they have to link up in a specifed sequence..in the same way that this very sentence I am typing is worded in a specifed way. These specifications are NECESSARY, and that is just for ONE protein molecule...but a cell would need hundreds of these molecules.
Some of the experiments produced more than 75 amino acids.
The right handed and left handed issue has been addressed by a recent article that I linked to a few weeks back. I guess you didn't see it.
If a sequence has to be specified and correct, how come we have ERVs? Why can't humans produce C-vitamins naturally in their body?
So for every one of those hundreds (at least three hundred) of proteins that are needed, the same improbability is applied for each and every one of them. You may be able to get one, and that is being VERY modest, but what are the chances of you getting at least 300 by a mindless and blind and not to mention RANDOM process? Yet, this is what you believe??
You need to stop and think to understand these arguments. You're blasting through with something that you think are counterarguments when you obviously don't even understand what was being said. I can tell you didn't even bother to read or understand what was said.
You have demonstrate how life could have formed without intelligent design. So far, we don't even know how life could have formed naturally with some of the greatest minds on earth on the job. If it is that difficult to make life from nonlife with intelligent design, how much more difficult would it be to create life from nonlife without it?
You didn't read it then.
Not to mention the fact that I am a mind-body dualist, and based on that belief I don't believe you can get consiousness from natural life. I believe the mind is separate body, and there is certainly no good naturalistic reason as to how you can get consicousness from matter...so I just don't think life from nonlife is even remotely possible.
I don't mind that you believe in dualism.
It doesn't matter if you believe in dualism or even that God created the first cells, the fact of the matter is that life then evolved after.
If you stopped acting like a troll and actually took your time to understand the arguments, it wouldn't be so frustrating for both parties.
