Posted: Jun 09, 2012 12:09 pm
chairman bill wrote:Assuming this doctor has an intelligent insight into what he's doing, then he would be a deceitful, mendacious, lying little shit. I suspect he lacks that sort of insight, and it just not that bright. His arguments are nothing new, and of a kind with the sort of bollocks people like ispoketoanangel might spew up over the forum.
I am afraid that I can only confirm that he is deceitful and mendacious and a liar - my only hope for his is that he know not what he do.
I took umbrage at his own analysis of question 5. Where did the genetic code come from? He writes:
lying quote-miner for Jeebus wrote:
How then did the sophisticated genetic code arise? Again we have only three possibilities: chance, necessity or design. The genetic code, like language, gives the appearance of being the product of an intelligent mind.
Richard Dawkins has tried to explain how proteins might be assembled using the genetic code by using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys banging away on computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a Shakespearean sonnet.
The former atheist Antony Flew recounts hearing Israeli scientist Gerald Schroeder referring to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts in which a computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After a month of hammering they produced 50 typed pages – but not a single English word. This is because the probability of getting even a one letter word (I or A with a space on either side) is one in 27,000.
The chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet (‘Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day’ has 488 letters) is one in 10 to the 690th. Similarly the chance of randomly assembling nucleotides coding for amino acid sequences forming functional proteins is vanishingly small.
The paragraph about Dawkins irritates me because Dawkins has tried to explain how complex things arise using the analogy of monkeys typing away (in chapter three of The Blind Watchmaker) and has provided us with how it works through the introduction of selection. He - Saunders - is quote mining Dawkins to make it appear as though there is no answer whereas it is long since known to us.
What a fucking liar. How can people do that - quote someone misleadingly and utterly misrepresent them and hide the known answer?