You missed the lack of a period after conspiracy. Not much of a gift. Find that video yet?
Forget that. Do you remember the time when you didn't know who Matt Goukas was? That was fun.
I'd try to change the subject too if I had painted myself into such a major corner, but to answer your question. No, it sounds like revisionist history from someone still butthurt over being taken to school on his favorite team. The Magic could really use Steve Van Gundy huh?Now back to that video?
I'm not backed into any corner, but I'm glad to see you really did think your initial comment was the same thing. There's no video evidence that God exists so that means we never again should require video evidence of anything to accept it. Exceptional theory.
Well but ID implicitly questions abiogenesis there is nothing about ID that expclity rejects a non-divine model of creation - aliens in theory could work just as well as god for example. What it does challenge directly is the fundamental tenets of evolution. I know a lot of people who believe in evolution, like myself, who freely admit that the "how" of the creation of life has not been full explained. The are good models and theories but nothing definitive exists. That said the idea that an abiogenesis scenario is mathematically impossible is also wrong. It assumes any number of things that aren't true:1. Biochemistry and chemistry aren't random die rolls, there are rules about how chemicals can form and bond lowering the odds dramatically. 2. You are trying to build life as wel know it, not really life as it might have been. Current theories on abiogenesis do not assume you build something 300 proteins long but more like 50. So what is being built isn't nearly as complex as the math assumes. You are actually ignoring steps that go from chemicals to polymers to self replicating polymers to protobiotics to bacteria. 3. You are not running sequential trials but simultaneous trials. In other words, nature isn't trying one combo and moving onto the next it is trying all of the combos at the same time.
The odds I've come across talk about 100 proteins, not 300. And to call those odds impossible is putting it nicely. Even if it were "only" 50, the odds would still be astronomically low, and still fit into the mathematically impossible realm. Less complex doesn't mean simple. Where do you think these "rules" come from concerning "how chemicals can form and bond"? You seem to be open to the idea that God set these rules, unless you meant something different entirely by your "how" comment. If so, you aren't who I was referring to with my initial post on this subject. About your "aliens in theory could work" comment, that reminds me of what Richard Dawkins said at the end of the Ben Stein documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Dawkins admitted there are signs of intelligent design, but in his opinion it would have come from a super race, an alien race. Funny, Dawkins has never seen an alien, Dawkins hasn't a clue if they exist or don't exist. Yet he's willing to accept the idea that they do? At least Christians have the Bible, and other evidence to base their faith on. What evidence does Dawkins have that aliens are even a possibility? It's just funny to watch how atheists deal with information that doesn't support their view of a world created entirely by chance.
The probability isn't low. It is almost inevitable. Again, to borrow a dice motiff. Getting "life" is like getting a Yahtzee. That is an improbable roll and if you alone are just rolling to get one it can take goodness knows how long - it is still inevitable you will get one though which is worth recalling. The problem for you is that it isn't you alone rolling dice on roll after another. It is more like everyone in America is rolling for Yahtzee at the same time and then doing it again. At that point, the probably does become an inevitability. Any argument for mathematical impossibility assumes too much complexity and sequential attempts to pump up he math. That said, even if you want to argue it is mathematically improbable you are admitting it is possible. I will say Dawkins quite in expelled shocked me. ...and well it should because it was edited cleverly. He denied any design at work but was making the argument if there was design why could it not equally imply aliens as god. Dawkins is an epic d-bag and all but in this case that isn't what he was saying. There is zero evidence of design and anyone who has ever looked at this knows that far from being planned organisms are a grab bag of trade offs, short cuts and lousy designs.
