INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[ImmortalFlame]

You actually do not get this? They were secular, non-theists.

Because all secular non-theists can be summed up as being on the same "side"? What makes you think that I'd agree with them?

What is so different about an early protein and how do you know that? Even if true this would only skew the numbers a bit, it isn't going to make it significantly different.

No, it makes it entirely different. It's like saying that the chance required for an iron hammer to be formed is comparable with the chance required for a lump of iron to form - they're two different things. We already know that not all proteins are the same - they change and adapt over time. Here's a good article on the subject: A glimpse into the evolution of proteins

I do not have the education to evaluate this one.

Then you do not have the education to suggest the validity of the equation in the first place. I wouldn't say that I have the education to refute it myself either, which is why I am deferring to the opinion of biologists for these objections.

I read about this long before I posted it. Any claim no matter how solid, (for example finite cosmology) if it indicates a roll for God will be fought tooth and nail even with theories based on no evidence nor even the potential for any.

Conspiratorial nonsense.

I am very very skeptical of theoretical science. I will consider this conclusion a draw and move on to another.

No, this is not a draw and you are not the judge. You either concede or we will continue discussing.

Arrogant, what are you talking about?

This "you guys always resort to cheap tactics - whereas I don't" mentality you tend to have comes off as arrogant. You clearly didn't read the link I gave you, which explained what Hoyle's fallacy was and how it shows the calculation is bunk. It doesn't matter if someone calls something you wrote a fallacy, what matters is that you must demonstrate that it is not. Like it or not, fallacies exist, and if you are using them it is a good indicator that your argument is extremely flawed.

This is simply determinism on steroids and of little help to you. I am very aware of cause and effect relationships, chaos theory, and determinism. The point is that determinism is not intentional. To get multiple things in very sophisticated orders requires intentionality. For example if nature produced and eye (and that is debatable) it also needs to form a specific type of visual cortex and a specific optical nerve network. Determinism does not help. There is nothing in nature that can generate these dependent and in "tune" contingent improbabilities. It gets far far worse for information. Information as in DNA (3.2 billion bits) is useless without a decoder also formed by independent means to read it. Only mind can do these things. I was expecting something much more profound than a flavor of materialism.

You've done nothing to counter the argument whatsoever, just made a further bunch of claims. The point is still this: the probability calculation fails to take account of physical laws and only calculates the possibility of something occurring by random chance. This renders the calculation meaningless.

This will not work for contingent but independent systems each reaching the needed improbable structures. Your sand example is not a complex ordered creation.

It doesn't matter. Using the same logic applied by your probability calculation, it is still infinitely improbable.

It is a lower than equilibrium (crystalline) complexity and bears no relationship to the complexity (infinitely higher than equilibrium) needed for even the simplest life. If this is your solution it won't work.

You don't seem to understand my argument at all.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I do not care. However if you put some money on it I might and will provide my transcripts.

Why not provide them without any money on the table?

In any case, it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you studied when and where, each argument stands on its own merits, and yours should be judged independently of any qualifications you possess. For what it's worth, I should not have made that judgement about your academic credentials anyway, and I apologize for overstepping the line.

Amino acids are low equilibrium complexity and no one believes nature can't produce them. However it took intelligence to produce only half of these simple structures.

They weren't produced by intelligence, they were produced by replicating early earth conditions and analyzing the results.

They only have about 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the structures left to produce life.

Irrelevant. The fact still remains that this demonstrates that the building blocks of life can arise naturally. It may not be much to you, but it is infinitely more evidence than you have every provided to the contrary.

This is like saying we found out how nature makes copper and silicone therefore nature produced deep blue. This is intellectual dishonesty.

It's not intellectual dishonesty to follow the evidence where it leads. Early earth conditions being able to produce amino acids, like it or not, is evidence that life can potentially arise naturally in early earth conditions.

This is just dishonest. Even if true you have absolutely no way to know this and the fact you say you do anyway is abhorrent and indicative of everything that is driving your rationalizations.

It's not dishonest. Name one thing in the entirety of human history which has a demonstrably supernatural cause. I don't see you refuting the point.

This is based totally on something you have no way possible of knowing.

Then you have no possible way of knowing either, so making claims about it is pointless.

Try again. I for one have experienced the supernatural more than once.

Can you demonstrate it? Can you demonstrate that the cause of your experience was supernatural? Are there no reasonable alternative explanations?

If you can answer these questions with a yes, I have a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

Your calling billions of people liars is getting close to my cut of the discussion point.

I'm not calling them liars. I'm calling them wrong. There's a big difference.

The fact that has never been observed to happen even when trying to force it to.

They didn't try to force it. They replicated early earth conditions and observed the results.

Plus the fact that even every single point along the trail of contingent probabilities of necessary things happening is past the physicists "call it zero and ignore it point", and there are hundreds of them. Not to mention a biological principle against it and the food industry that would collapse it occurred.

A heaping mound of garbage, totally and completely. Are you honestly going to make the peanut butter jar argument? Seriously?

The excellent article Can Natural Processes Explain the Origin of Life? gives numbers calculated by scientists from several different fields. First, keep in mind that anything with a chance of less than 1 x 10-50 is considered to be statistically impossible, an event that would never happen. So what are the chances that an average-sized protein would form by itself out of amino acids in nature? 4.9 x 10-191, which is far, far beyond the "impossible" boundary. But that's just one protein - not an entire DNA strand, and certainly not an entire living cell. What are the chances of a living cell just happening to cobble itself together out of a soup of amino acids? Why, that would be 1 x 10-40,000, a probability which, according to the article, "could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup"

Did you completely ignore my refutation? All of these calculations are meaningless and completely baseless. Do I have to repeat myself? I'm not as keen to do it as you are.

Let's go back to that first tiny creature that would have started all evolution and try to understand the unbelievable creation it in itself was. That first tiny organism was incredibly complex - with all our science and understanding we can't come close to creating anything like it.

So what? Centuries ago we had no idea how nature could create thunderstorms - now we do. Are you suggesting we're at the pinnacle of scientific understanding?

Consider one of the simplest living organisms now known, the single-DNA strand E.Coli bacteria. Even this simplest organism has about 5,000 genes - the genetic code holders. Alter the position, leave out or change the chemical combinations up of just a few lines of code and the organism ceases to thrive. There are 4.80 x 1050 (3)possible DNA combinations in those 5,000 genes. That means the odds of that DNA strand forming are:[/FONT]

1 in 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000​

How big is this number? It's more than astronomical! Think of it this way. There's 1.37 x 1025 drops of (4)water in all the oceans on Earth (10 drops per cc x 1015 cc per km3 x 1.37x109 km3 water in oceans). That's 10 to the 25th power, not 50TH power. You'd need to count every drop of water on 7 trillion trillion Earths to get the same number! Here's another thought. You know how big a millimeter is? About the width of a dime. Pretty small right? From one side to the other, the (5)UNIVERSE has a diameter of 3 x 1029 millimeters. The odds of accidentally forming that first single DNA strand is a billion trillion times larger. Using accepted mathematical and statistical theory, it's (6)statistically impossible that this happened in the simplest single cell organism. Now consider that humans have 100 trillion cells in their body - each in a unique location for a unique purpose. The impossibility of our existence is why we can know we were created in the image of God.

I believe you can follow these links and get the computations for these numbers. However I am not claiming that they are extremely accurate. There are too many margins of error in this type stuff. What I am claiming is that they give a rough ballpark figure. You can halve them, divide buy 10,000 or whatever you wish within reason and you still get no freakin way. Even this is only a fraction of what is necessary to get life and I noticed you did not answer my questions. What is the probability that nothing exploded and created a fine tuned for life structured universe by natural causes? Zero.

All I see is arguments from credulity and a complete lack of understanding of statistics, thermodynamics, statistical thermodynamics and a hell of a lot of dishonesty. Until you can answer the refutation on the basis that all these calculations merely calculate probability based entirely on "random chance", you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[1robin]

It easy to agree that the “Laws of Nature God” exists. But the Abrahamic God? You can’t be that superstitious, are you? The only reason science has not proven that God does not exist is because it is kind of hard to prove what does not exist.

You are talking about two different arguments however only the Bible assigns omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, timeless, and nonmaterial specifically to God. Those are the exact properties that are indicated by cosmology and philosophy as to whatever it was the produced the universe. Not bad for guys who as you think were lying 4000 years ago and long before they had any idea what to fake. You are right that getting from theism to Yahweh is two different things but the case for Abraham's God is even stronger that theism from cosmology etc....

You on the other hand who probably sincerely thinks s/he exists should have no problem giving us some scientific evidence that this cruel and mean entity exists

. I do not believe in a cruel and mean entity so no I can give you no evidence for him.

Why would anyone try to defend this monster:

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

I am not going this whole thing again. Please see my other posts on God and slavery and war. These are very benevolent actions if God exists and his revelation is true. They only become evil if he doesn't, and in that case what are we discussing? Got Context? If you are still insistent on this nonsense I will attempt to supply the 90% of the story you leave out tomorrow. I have had enough of these claims for one day.

 

[1robin]

It doesn't matter who's probabilities you gave, you claimed that anything smaller than 1 x 10^50 is equivalent to zero which is demonstrably false.

No I did not. I said that in physics numbers smaller than that are declared to be zero and dismissed. When probabilities reach this level of unlikelihood they are not worth considering in science. I had an entire year of cal based physics and know very well that this is true and I do not even think this is what you have been contending about anyway. Anyway the numbers for life coming from non life are almost infinately worse.

 

[1robin]

Agree.

A number greater than zero is never equal to zero. Only in certain computations can you discard small numbers, like engineering and such. A small chance, however small it is, is still a chance. Almost every week someone wins on Lotto even though it's a very small chance I (specifically) would win.

That is precisely why I said they consider it zero not that it actually is zero. Good lord, is there anything so irrelevant or trivial that if it has the slightest perceived impact on theism it will not be held onto by an atheist like grim death. This is the equivalent of a mule fighting for a turnip. BTW the actual numbers are so absurdly unlikely that 1 in 10^50 looks like a virtual certainty in comparison.

 

[Falvlun]

Regarding the odds of a protein forming, consider that it is estimated that 107,602,707,791 humans have been born since the beginning of time. That means that the chances of me being me, as opposed to somebody else, were 1 in 107,602,707,791. And yet here I am! Defier of odds!

And that doesn't even begin to address the millions of different combinations of DNA that could of been. We are walking talking improbability machines.

 

[1robin]

Regarding the odds of a protein forming, consider that it is estimated that 107,602,707,791 humans have been born since the beginning of time. That means that the chances of me being me, as opposed to somebody else, were 1 in 107,602,707,791. And yet here I am! Defier of odds!

And that doesn't even begin to address the millions of different combinations of DNA that could of been. We are walking talking improbability machines.

That is not correct. You would have been you no matter which of those combinations was spit out. There is probability and contingent probability. For example if DNA is mutated it is lethal in 99.9999999.........% of the cases. Let me explain it another way. There are infinitely (literally) more ways a building can be destroyed than built. Building requires not just complexity but specified complexity. The same with information. The only thing known to produce that kind of stuff is mind. Another is the human eye. Once it was evolved then a certain exact type of optical nerve and a visual cortex must also be evolved. This will not happen about an infinite number of times, before it does. I think you need a stats refresher. What made you, you could have been anything. What makes an eye operate with the brain is very very specific.

 

[Skeptisch]

If you are still insistent on this nonsense I will attempt to supply the 90% of the story you leave out tomorrow. I have had enough of these claims for one day.

Don’t bother.
Pseudoscience is a belief that masquerades as a real science, despite failing to follow the scientific method.
Your arguments are often engulfed in intellectual dishonesty and for that reason …I am out. :run:

 

[Me Myself]

That is not correct. You would have been you no matter which of those combinations was spit out. There is probability and contingent probability. For example if DNA is mutated it is lethal in 99.9999999.........% of the cases. Let me explain it another way. There are infinitely (literally) more ways a building can be destroyed than built. Building requires not just complexity but specified complexity. The same with information. The only thing known to produce that kind of stuff is mind. Another is the human eye. Once it was evolved then a certain exact type of optical nerve and a visual cortex must also be evolved. This will not happen about an infinite number of times, before it does. I think you need a stats refresher. What made you, you could have been anything. What makes an eye operate with the brain is very very specific.

"Contingent" is a very caprichous concept.

The bottom of the issue is: how can you know only a conscious being can do this? How is it not a supposition?

Yu have seen conscious beings doing things deliberately and these things working well(sometimes) . How does is evidence that all which works well was made deliberately by a conscious being?

And who determines what works well or not? Because even that is an arbitrary judgement.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

For example if DNA is mutated it is lethal in 99.9999999.........% of the cases.

Complete and absolute lie. The vast majority of genetic mutations have no impact whatsoever on the survivability of the individual life form. In fact, every individual life form carries in it between 100 and 200 completely unique genetic mutations. This claim is not only false, but I can only comprehend you making such a claim if you were intentionally trying to mislead people.

I expect a retraction of this lie immediately.

 

[Looncall]

That is not correct. You would have been you no matter which of those combinations was spit out. There is probability and contingent probability. For example if DNA is mutated it is lethal in 99.9999999.........% of the cases. Let me explain it another way. There are infinitely (literally) more ways a building can be destroyed than built. Building requires not just complexity but specified complexity. The same with information. The only thing known to produce that kind of stuff is mind. Another is the human eye. Once it was evolved then a certain exact type of optical nerve and a visual cortex must also be evolved. This will not happen about an infinite number of times, before it does. I think you need a stats refresher. What made you, you could have been anything. What makes an eye operate with the brain is very very specific.

Typical creationist idiocy. You are dishonestly omitting mention of the ratchet effect of evolution by which changes build on each other to produce a final result.

You have been taken in by the worst kind of conmen: those who attack your intellect.

 

[1robin]

Because all secular non-theists can be summed up as being on the same "side"? What makes you think that I'd agree with them?

I do not think it's possible to agree with any numbers that indicate God is a reality will be accepted by you even if you derived them. However it is common sense that non theists would not skew numbers in God's favor. It is the most non biased numbers available. I am only required to give truth, do with it as you will.

No, it makes it entirely different. It's like saying that the chance required for an iron hammer to be formed is comparable with the chance required for a lump of iron to form - they're two different things. We already know that not all proteins are the same - they change and adapt over time. Here's a good article on the subject: A glimpse into the evolution of proteins

Actually some of the numbers I gave I found out later on were for an average protein, which is about as non biased as possible. I also strongly doubt that anything reliable is known about proteins that existed a billion years ago. Though I am quite that will not stop grant hungry scientists from claiming they know.

Then you do not have the education to suggest the validity of the equation in the first place. I wouldn't say that I have the education to refute it myself either, which is why I am deferring to the opinion of biologists for these objections.

MY numbers were from people who are sufficiently educated. Pointing out ambiguity in a part of an equation even if it actually exists in these kinds of calculations will never make an astronomical hyperbolic insanely improbable event into a likely one. I told you you are welcome to cut them in half or divide by a thousand it won't help.

Conspiratorial nonsense.

I guess that si one way to dismiss things you do not like. However that will not get the dozens of very good biologists back their jobs they lost because they left the door open for God.

No, this is not a draw and you are not the judge. You either concede or we will continue discussing.

Look, I was doing that for convenience but can fight in tooth and nail and probably prove my claim is accurate if necessary. You demand for concession is denied. Restate you claim and we will resume.

This "you guys always resort to cheap tactics - whereas I don't" mentality you tend to have comes off as arrogant. You clearly didn't read the link I gave you, which explained what Hoyle's fallacy was and how it shows the calculation is bunk. It doesn't matter if someone calls something you wrote a fallacy, what matters is that you must demonstrate that it is not. Like it or not, fallacies exist, and if you are using them it is a good indicator that your argument is extremely flawed.

The claims I made about bias are absolute facts. They exist on my side as well but I am primarily using numbers from secular people or straining out my side's kooks. I am simply too dang lazy to have gone through why some biased people have countered Hoyle beyond what I did to determine the caliber of their rejections. They are based on guesses and assumptions and at best only vary the numbers insignificantly. Hoyle being only one of many sources I gave I was going to instead spend time on them but I guess that isn't possible. I have already stated why I think 3 of the 4 objections are meaningless and I did not understand the 4th so what more is necessary?

You've done nothing to counter the argument whatsoever, just made a further bunch of claims. The point is still this: the probability calculation fails to take account of physical laws and only calculates the possibility of something occurring by random chance. This renders the calculation meaningless.

So mathematicians doing this stuff for a living are risking their career for a God they do not believe in anyway and you have called them out. I will go with them. By the way my degree is in math and I know very well what you are saying and why it is them not you that is correct. If we only discussed the initial conditions there are constants after constants that have no natural explanation. They seem to be generated by no cause whatever, They are just there. The universe could have been different, there is no natural necessity for it to be what it is and even within it many of the most influential factors have no necessity. Why is the speed of light 299,792,458 m/s, why is the expansion rate what it is, why is the weak nuclear force and the strong what they are, why is gravity what it is, etc.....? There is currently no explanation besides God, but we can't have that can we? This is what string theory was supposed to but failed to explain. These plus thousands more make nature randomly generated. If you want to get into information theory, chaos theory, random mutation and all that then fine but it will all I have time and room for. I can destroy determinism utterly but it takes time.

It doesn't matter. Using the same logic applied by your probability calculation, it is still infinitely improbable.

No a crystal is a very low complexity state of matter. Improbability varies proportionally with the level of complexity. This is stats 101 stuff. In fact a crystal is almost the lowest complexity state a solid can assume.

You don't seem to understand my argument at all.

I am not sure you do. A crystal is kind of like rolling all the pool balls on a table and having them all end up on one end of a slightly slanted table. Very likely. A cell is like rolling the pool balls and having them all come to rest one on top of each other. Not very likely and likelihood is what we are discussing. Let’s say an amino acid would be like getting them all in the pockets. Imagine that there are 10,000 balls, you are saying that the physics that began them rolling around determines where they will come to rest. I agree but that is not the whole picture. In nature you must have a decoder. So imagine a completely separate set of forces is driving the pockets to move around. If we find looking back that all the balls went into the pockets then we say that was unimaginably improbable because the two governing dynamics were independent. That is very crude but unmistakable.

 

[1robin]

No, it makes it entirely different. It's like saying that the chance required for an iron hammer to be formed is comparable with the chance required for a lump of iron to form - they're two different things. We already know that not all proteins are the same - they change and adapt over time. Here's a good article on the subject: A glimpse into the evolution of proteins

This is from that link. Not cherry picked just the first couple paragraphs.

Life did not emerge overnight. The first primitive life forms that developed on Earth around four billion years ago had little in common with today's organisms.

And how do they know what happened 4 billion years ago?.

They probably managed without proteins. And the first proteins that formed in the following few hundred million years to become essential elements of the living world also differed from those of today: scientists assume that the first proteins were composed of a reduced repertoire of only seven or eight different amino acids.

We see here how they know, they assume. When you are saying "probably" and "assume" you are not discussing scientific facts you are discussing faith based guesses.

The repertoire of today's proteins, however, typically contains twenty amino acids. A team of researchers headed by Donald Hilvert, a professor at the Laboratory of Organic Chemistry, has now simulated how the minimal starting amino acid repertoire might have expanded in the course of evolution. Not only do the researchers draw conclusions regarding the past from their work, they also gain important insights into future directions for synthetic biology.

A glimpse into the evolution of proteins

So they figured out in lab conditions how to make amino acids and claim it might be like nature did. Nature did not have scientists available. They do not even mention this:
What the experiment created was 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed amino acids. It created death, not life. The proteins of life can not be created from a 50-50 mixture of amino acids because the right-handed amino acids interfere with the formation of required proteins.
Stanley Miller - Creates Life (Amino Acids)?

I am not saying they are wrong but what are the odds they are right. Not very good. This is not something that can be used as counter evidence. In fact your argument is handy capped by the unfortunate fact that these things are almost impossible to know. Nothing done today can prove a whale became a cow or that life arose from whatever existed 4 billion years ago. I do not fault science for that, I only insist they admit it. Most won't. There are thousands of hits for scientists create life. I have read many of them and the headline is only for sensationalism they have never even come close.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I do not think it's possible to agree with any numbers that indicate God is a reality will be accepted by you even if you derived them. However it is common sense that non theists would not skew numbers in God's favor. It is the most non biased numbers available. I am only required to give truth, do with it as you will.

It doesn't matter where the source comes from - bad maths is bad maths.

Actually some of the numbers I gave I found out later on were for an average protein, which is about as non biased as possible.

I wish you'd stop using this phrase. You are not qualified to judge what sources are biased or not - the information speaks for itself.

I also strongly doubt that anything reliable is known about proteins that existed a billion years ago.

Argument from incredulity. Just because you don't think so, doesn't mean the scientists don't have methods that they can test. Why not look into it before jumping to conclusions?

MY numbers were from people who are sufficiently educated. Pointing out ambiguity in a part of an equation even if it actually exists in these kinds of calculations will never make an astronomical hyperbolic insanely improbable event into a likely one. I told you you are welcome to cut them in half or divide by a thousand it won't help.

I've already explained why the equation is fundamentally flawed, and how the same logic used in the equation can be applied to almost any physical construct in the known Universe and you would come to the same conclusion that they are all infinitely improbable.

The equation is incapable of taking into account the physics, biology and chemistry involved in the formation of life, it simply calculates the probability BASED ON RANDOM CHANCE. It is thus a meaningless equation.

I guess that si one way to dismiss things you do not like.

And a good way to do that is also to invent an elaborate conspiracy for which you have absolutely no evidence.

However that will not get the dozens of very good biologists back their jobs they lost because they left the door open for God.

How good a biologist those people were is not a judgement you can make. If they lost their jobs, it's most likely because they were not. If there is some prejudice going on in the field of biology, please feel free to present evidence of it.

Look, I was doing that for convenience but can fight in tooth and nail and probably prove my claim is accurate if necessary. You demand for concession is denied. Restate you claim and we will resume.

It was your claim. You said that Hoyle's calculation was accurate, I explained why it wasn't. Now you either concede the point or refute the arguments that biologists have with his calculation.

The claims I made about bias are absolute facts.

Facts that you haven't demonstrated. In other words: conjecture.

They exist on my side as well but I am primarily using numbers from secular people or straining out my side's kooks.

Anybody who believes the bogus probability calculation is sufficient evidence to dismiss abiogenesis is a kook - it doesn't matter if they're secular or otherwise.

I am simply too dang lazy to have gone through why some biased people have countered Hoyle beyond what I did to determine the caliber of their rejections. They are based on guesses and assumptions and at best only vary the numbers insignificantly.

This is your one-stop response to any facts that don't fit with your beliefs. "They're just guesses and assumptions!". No, they're not. They have the facts, they have the data, they have the working, they have the expertise.

Hoyle being only one of many sources I gave I was going to instead spend time on them but I guess that isn't possible. I have already stated why I think 3 of the 4 objections are meaningless and I did not understand the 4th so what more is necessary?

You failed to refute any of the four objections, I'm still waiting for a sufficient response with reference to the relevant facts.

So mathematicians doing this stuff for a living are risking their career for a God they do not believe in anyway and you have called them out.

Yep.

I will go with them.

So you're ignoring my refutation and just siding with them regardless? You put a tremendous amount of faith in people's whose maths has been utterly refuted. Care to give me the names of these mathematicians?

By the way my degree is in math and I know very well what you are saying and why it is them not you that is correct.

Okay then, please show me how their equations take account of electro-magnetic forces, basic chemistry and early-earth conditions in their equations.

If we only discussed the initial conditions there are constants after constants that have no natural explanation. They seem to be generated by no cause whatever, They are just there. The universe could have been different, there is no natural necessity for it to be what it is and even within it many of the most influential factors have no necessity.

All of which is exactly why the notion of calculating the probability of life arising is patently absurd.

Why is the speed of light 299,792,458 m/s, why is the expansion rate what it is, why is the weak nuclear force and the strong what they are, why is gravity what it is, etc.....? There is currently no explanation besides God, but we can't have that can we?

God is not an explanation - it's a crutch for people who can't face the possibility that there might be things we have to figure out ourselves.

This is what string theory was supposed to but failed to explain. These plus thousands more make nature randomly generated. If you want to get into information theory, chaos theory, random mutation and all that then fine but it will all I have time and room for. I can destroy determinism utterly but it takes time.

This rant is no less impressive the seventh time I've read it than it was the first time I did. Please stick to the topic at hand.

No a crystal is a very low complexity state of matter. Improbability varies proportionally with the level of complexity. This is stats 101 stuff. In fact a crystal is almost the lowest complexity state a solid can assume.

You clearly do not understand the point. Have you ever looked at the atomic structure of a crystal? Have you ever calculated the possibility of that particular atomic structure arising by "random chance"? Because if you did, you would find that even placing the first few atoms correctly would be so unlikely that the crystal could be said to be infinitely complex. And this is the exact same logic used in the bogus probability calculation. The same maths that shows that life is "infinitely improbable" cane be applied to almost any physical structure that exists in the known world - complex or otherwise - and used to deduce that that object is "infinitely complex". I could not explain this any clearer.

 

[Ouroboros]

Hoyle's Fallacy is rejected by evolutionary biologists,[3] since, as the late John Maynard Smith pointed out, "no biologist imagines that complex structures arise in a single step."[5] The modern evolutionary synthesis explains how complex cellular structures evolved by analysing the intermediate steps required for precellular life. It is these intermediate steps that are omitted in creationist arguments, which is the cause of their overestimating of the improbability of the entire process.[1]

Hoyle's fallacy, Wikipedia (Hoyle's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is from that link. Not cherry picked just the first couple paragraphs.

And how do they know what happened 4 billion years ago?.

We see here how they know, they assume. When you are saying "probably" and "assume" you are not discussing scientific facts you are discussing faith based guesses.

This is called "proposing a hypothesis". It's a tactic often employed by the intellectually honest.

So they figured out in lab conditions how to make amino acids and claim it might be like nature did. Nature did not have scientists available.

There's just no getting through to you, is there? Scientists could fulfill all of your demands - they could form life in a lab or create a universe from nothing, and you'd still argue "yeah, but they're still scientists doing it, so it still demonstrates God!".

They do not even mention this:
What the experiment created was 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed amino acids. It created death, not life. The proteins of life can not be created from a 50-50 mixture of amino acids because the right-handed amino acids interfere with the formation of required proteins.
Stanley Miller - Creates Life (Amino Acids)?

Again, in looking at what the scientists didn't do you're completely missing what the scientists DID do. A person with your mentality would watch the Wright brothers take off from the ground, and after landing say "yeah, well, they failed the break the sound barrier, so I'm not convinced."

I am not saying they are wrong but what are the odds they are right. Not very good.

You are impossible to reason with.

This is not something that can be used as counter evidence. In fact your argument is handy capped by the unfortunate fact that these things are almost impossible to know.

Argument from incredulity.

Nothing done today can prove a whale became a cow or that life arose from whatever existed 4 billion years ago.

Not unless we can test and clearly demonstrate it with the available evidence.

I do not fault science for that, I only insist they admit it. Most won't. There are thousands of hits for scientists create life. I have read many of them and the headline is only for sensationalism they have never even come close.

You blame scientists for the attention-grabbing methods of the news media? How far do you think your imagined "scientific conspiracy" goes? Is Rupert Murdoch in on it?

All I see in this post is "We can't know for certain and they haven't demonstrated it yet, so I refuse to believe it's possible". That is the very definition of willful ignorance and incredulity.

 

[1robin]

Typical creationist idiocy. You are dishonestly omitting mention of the ratchet effect of evolution by which changes build on each other to produce a final result.

You have been taken in by the worst kind of conmen: those who attack your intellect.

Ratcheting effects only add to my argument. Things that require a successive chain of independent but extremely specific mutations are unimaginably less likely than a single "good" mutation. It seems the less someone understands statistics the more likely they are to assert than they do and assert others don't. Since you made a claim to knowledge, exactly what creationist did my argument come from?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The only known source of extreme complexity is mind. Yet here you have abandoned reason and asserted complexity is causal and mind derivative. If you were a theist this would not be necessary.

How complex is your god?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You have two choices life came from a natural or supernatural source. It is either effectual or absolute law of biology that life only comes from life. Not a single exception to this principle has ever been observed despite many attempts and countless lies to the contrary. That kind of narrows things down.

It is possible for the building blocks of life to form from inorganic matter. We know this. You know this. So either you're lying here, or feigning ignorance (which you really can't do anyway since the evidence has been presented to you).

I'm sorry, but you don't get to accuse others of lying, as you're lying.

 

[1robin]

Complete and absolute lie. The vast majority of genetic mutations have no impact whatsoever on the survivability of the individual life form. In fact, every individual life form carries in it between 100 and 200 completely unique genetic mutations. This claim is not only false, but I can only comprehend you making such a claim if you were intentionally trying to mislead people.

I expect a retraction of this lie immediately.

Accuse me of lying again and there will not be any discussion of any kind. Lying implies intent and even if I had intent, you can't possibly know that. In this case I meant non beneficial but had lethal on my mind from a previous discussion and mistakenly typed it in my statement. Your insinuation of lying is what was dishonest. I am mistaken at times, but I have no need to lie and certainly not in that minor issue. Do you actually think I care what you think enough to go through the trouble of lying?