Post by Bayes on Dec 2, 2011 3:14:18 GMT
Dec 1, 2011 7:52:04 GMT tarek said:
I think you mean that all life contains DNA. But okay.
So far, so good.
And here is where you go off the rails. On what grounds do you claim that a mathematical pattern cannot emerge at random? It seems to me that you're just sneaking in the assumption that if something can be understood in some mathematical way then it has to have been the result of a deliberate act of creation. This is supposed to be the conclusion of your argument but here we find you using it as a premise.
Furthermore, on what grounds do you claim that we must make the choice between these mathematical patterns emerging at random or emerging as the result of a deliberate act of creation? Why can't we assume that they're the result of some natural process that we don't know about yet?
Really this is where all design arguments tend to fail. They lack imagination. Paley was content to reduce our choices to god or chance with respect to biological design only to have Darwin demonstrate that the apparent design we find in nature is explained much better by evolution by natural selection.
A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41,000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 4 power 1000=10 power 600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension. The number 4 power 1000 is the equivalent of 10 power 600. This means 1 followed by 600 zeros. As 1 with 12 zeros after it indicates a trillion, 600 zeros represents an inconceivable number. The impossibility of the formation of RNA and DNA by a coincidental accumulation of nucleotides is expressed by the French scientist Paul Auger in this way: We have to sharply distinguish the two stages in the chance formation of such as nucleotides by chemical events. The production of nucleotides one by one - which is possible- and the combination of these with in very special sequences. The second is absolutely impossible. For many years, Francis Crick believed in the theory of molecular evolution, but eventually even he had to admit to himself that such a complex molecule could not have emerged spontaneously by coincidence, as the result of an evolutionary process: An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle.
The Turkish evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following confession on the issue: In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA RNA) is a probability way beyond estimating. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic. A very interesting paradox emerges at this point: While DNA can only replicate with the help of special proteins (enzymes), the synthesis of these proteins can only be realized by the information encoded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, either they have to exist at the same time for replication, or one of them has to be "created" before the other
Evolution deceit , Haroun Yehia
If you are going to say that the human cell evolved , I'd tell you that the same example is still applied on yeast cell , algae and plant cells which are still extremely complicated. So life can't start without an original creator.
Every great design must have a designer and sb who did it so it's not strange to say so. What's really strange is to claim the contrary .
You say that may be it was done by an eery and this is what I call total dodging and equivocation. You are escaping the logical, scientific and axiomic facts to go nowhere. You are going the way fo nothing. You are saying that matter came from nothing and the intricate design came from nothing and this is a logical fallacy.
So who designed God?