Mr. Dawn said:
Quoting another Apologist is like quoting from the Bible. His opinions are influenced by Christianity. Nice try, but sorry.
NeutralZone said:
MrDawn:
The problem with your above reply is that it is lame, because you have yet to prove the findings of Lee Strobel to be erroneous. You are now pretending as if Strobel were the only person who gave that assessment of the DNA code and that Strobel made it all up merely because Strobel is an Apologist. Furthermore, you have yet to dispute the fact that all codes require the intervention of an intelligent person who wrote the particular code.
FYI: Strobel’s report is backed up by dozens of other sources that cannot all be accused of being “Apologists.” Below is one such source giving similar information to what Strobel gave about the DNA code.
" The code itself
The code is written using the four nucleic acids found in RNA: adenine (A), uracil (U), cytosine (C) and guanine (G). Assembling the four bases into triplets (codons) produces 64 combinations: 61 coding for amino acids and the remaining 3 coding for stop signals instructing the translation machinery to stop making a polypeptide chain.
Though there are more codon combinations than amino acids, this is not a biological slip-up, as having more codons than amino acids allows for a degree of error. For instance, the codon UCA codes for the amino acid serine. If the A in the third position were to be changed to a C (UCC), the codon would still code for serine. This property, known as redundancy, reduces the chance of mistakes in the DNA being translated into proteins, which could be detrimental to the organism."
Now, do you expect this forum to believe that the people at the Genomics Education Program who approved the publication of this article did so because they are all Apologists?
Let us know.