His math was wrong. His reasoning was wrong also.
As for the origin of life over billions of years, someone else, above, posted that.
Why only humans? Why not all of the other living things on earth? And all the things that once lived but are extinct today? And, perhaps more important, all of the living things that might ever have lived. Again, this was Morris’ central error: he calculated the “odds” of a giraffe’s retinal cell arising, but ignored every other possible living cell.
The premise that codes must be created by a mind is (in my opinion) demonstrably false. The minor premise, that DNA is a code, is disputable, because you are using the word differently than others. You also have used the word “meaning” and this, too, is problematic, because you are using it in a way that depends on intelligent interpretation. The information in DNA does not need intelligence to interpret it; the survival of (say) a pine tree, and its reproduction via pine-cones and seeds, is its own “interpretation.” If the process is successful, there will continue to be pine trees. That is the “meaning” of DNA.
As noted above, this is special pleading. You are allowing God to exist forever, but denying that the universe might have existed forever.
Why is it more acceptable that a structured, ordered, complex, intelligent entity has existed forever (and, fuck, didn’t he get bored existing forever without doing anything at all with his intelligence?) than that an unordered, simple, inert clump of gas came into existence at some point in time?
Why? Why is your proposition “easier” than mine? I find yours vastly more difficult to accept. It depends on so many more unexplained claims.
And, again, it’s easier to accept that that “something” was simple, inert, unorganized, and non-intelligent, rather than that “something” is complex, ordered, intelligent, and possessed of vast power and the conscious will to create.
All of your arguments about the human cell rebound against you: how many bits of information are needed to describe God? Far more than to describe the human cell! And yet you happily accept that God came about without origin, while denying the possibility that the human cell might have come about by a specific process of accumulation.
Do you, in fact, accept the age of the universe to be in the billions of years, and not the thousands? Just checking… Given that, you also have to multiply by all of the planets in all of the galaxies, upon which life might have arisen. The numbers seem entirely sufficient.
I’ve never seen a sim program that ran all of the changes over all of the billions of generations of life, from bacterium to mammals. On the other hand, mutations, as observed in the laboratory – actually observed in living cells – suggest a pace of change that easily supports the origin of mammals in the time allotted.
Why would an intelligent designer do it this way? What is so “intelligent” about retaining features from old models in later models? What is so “intelligent” about whales and snakes having hip bones, when they don’t have legs to attach to their hips? Evolution explains this easily, but intelligent design cannot answer it at all. It’s not intelligent!
No: the expression denotes a process that goes on forever, without end.
And, no, we aren’t saying that the expression is true. We’re using the expression as a satire on the notion of a process that is without a beginning.
How many Super-super-super Gods were there, who created each successive God, until we came to the God that we have today?
(For whom, by the way, no evidence is has been presented…)
and U atoms are forged in the midst of all that heat and pressure. Cause/effect.