Originally posted by lee_merrill
View Post
Originally posted by lee_merrill
View Post
Next, he's calculating the probability of life arising by calculating the probability of the instant appearance of an entire genome, which nobody who knows biology thinks actually happened. Then he suddenly switches to negative entropy, making the typical creationist mistake of assuming the earth is a closed system (which it's not). He then switches to Cytochrome C, a mature, highly evolved protein complex, which is completely unlike anything that would have existed at the origin of life. Yet he uses its probability of appearing at random as if it's relevant. He then refers to amino acid length as "too short to code a living system", apparently unaware that amino acids don't encode genetic information. Then he switches to geology, and makes a completely unsubstantiated and irrelevant claim. And then he accuses his opponents of having faith.
It's a hot mess, an incoherent mix of fragments of standard creationist arguments presented in random order.
If it seems reasonable to you, the only conclusion i can reach is that you are simply not reasonable, in that you'll accept anything, no matter how incoherent, if you think it supports what you want to believe.
Comment