If Kurzweil is right or wrong and by how much is completely irrelevant. What is relevant, and this is the only relevant thing about the entire discussion is:

If Kurzweil is right or wrong and by how much is completely irrelevant. What is relevant, and this is the only relevant thing about the entire discussion is: 1) When will we reach the ability to take a snapshot of an entire organism with a nervous system up to a resolution sufficient to satisfy all expected simulation parameters? 2) When will sufficient computing and storage capacity be available to run a simulation off the data captured in step #1? 3) Will the simulation performed in step #2 adequately match the organism as it exists in real life to declare that the simulation a success. 4) When will we be able to perform steps #1, #2 and #3 for a human sized organism? By the nature of such an experiment, a negative result does not indicate the absence of a positive in the future. And certainly, and inference on a negative outcome at any step cannot be valid without performing the steps, that's just guesswork. It's also worth noting that inherently estimates on timelines of this are nearly impossible because one cannot exclude the possibility of radical advances in scanning, computing and storage hardware. Or, if you prefer to have a TL;DR explanation for geeks. Unless you can write and run a program, it's nearly impossible to debug it or make statements about how useful it'll be.