A computer chip is a genius invention. It is relatively small yet it can store vast amounts of information. This invention showcases complexity: small object containing vast amount of information.
Whoever invented the modern computer chip designed something tiny that holds a lot of information.
Well, the first computers were the size of rooms and couldn't do much more than add. Computers and chips have gotten smaller and more powerful over time. So, your analogy is spot on -- only it's disproving your point.
Just as computer components have become more complex, each step building on the steps that came before it, so to have organisms.
Only a Deity could invent a object infinetly smaller than a chip and have it contain infinetly more information.
Of course this sentence also applies to the Intel team that put together the 4004 in 1971, seeing as today's chips are unthinkably smaller and process unthinkably more information, then the current employees of Intel must be Gods amoung men.
Can any Darwinist describe or re-phrase the Dawkins quote without using terminology inferring design ?
Sure, here we go
The quote:
“... there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over. ... There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ”primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 116-117.
My quote: DNA's length and size allows it to store a lot of information within a very small space.
Sure, I've trimmed it down a bit, but if Dawkins is so sure of himself, have him store just 1 Encyclopaedia Britannica in an amoeba. That's gotta be pretty easy considering.
Has anyone ever wondered why there are 60,000,000 definitions of Natural Selection ?
Okay, if there are 60 million definitions, care to give us just 100 of them? Should be easy.
No, what is apparent is that the status quo refuse to credit a Creator lest they give what they hate any legitimacy.
Blah, blah, blah. Look, just because you are motivated by alterior motives doesn't mean that the rest of us are.
We now know complexity is the mark and m.o. of the Divine - which is logical.
So, sea coral is vastly more intelligent than pigs. Snails are vastly more intelligent than dogs. I see where you are going with this... do you?
The inability to produce one coherent and universal definition of Natural Selection is because nature is extremely complex, IOW God has produced a cosmology so complex He has confused Darwinian ranks attempting to define the mechanism which produced the complexity.
Let's flip the script shall we? Why is there no single consensus on religion? If you take 10 "Christians" and put them in a room, you come out with 8 different denominations and 6 different Holy Wars. God has so confounded the religious that there is absolutely no agreement, not only on what method of worship, but who in fact this divine being is.
If you are saying that Thor has tricked us with the incredible complexity of life he has created, then I think Faith has a few choice words for you.
IOW, the infinite definitions of Natural Selection prove the IDer.
Just as the infinite number of deities prove the atheist. Which in turn disproves you IDer.
™ Version 4.2
