Fundies Will Be Shitting Bricks

[Statler Waldorf]

---

I am not claiming that it couldn’t have happened because of the low probability (the chemical impossibilities demonstrate it couldn’t happen well enough). I am saying it is completely reasonable to say it didn’t happen because the odds of it occurring ever are so ridiculous they require far more blind faith than I have to believe. You make these same rational judgments on a daily basis…
”Is DB Cooper still alive?” “I doubt it; the chances of him surviving and still being alive today are just too small.”
“Is Elvis still alive?” “I really doubt it, even though I personally never saw his dead body, the chances of him still being alive are just too remote.”
“Is the Loch Ness Monster real?” “I doubt it, the chances of an animal of that size living on the small amount of fish that inhabit the loch is just too small.”
“Did abiogenesis occur 3.5 billion years ago?” “No, even if it were chemically possible, the chances of it actually happening are far too remote (a statistical impossibility)”

---

And you completely missed the point. In none of those examples is a priori probability the relevant quantity to consider.

No, you are actually just suppressing the truth in your heart. Romans 1.

Weird, I thought that if I'd be suppressing any truths, it would be in my brain. You learn something every day!

You are not using "a priori" correctly.

My examples were completely valid. We are talking about unobserved events, and their probabilities of occurring. I say the probabilities of abiogenesis occurring are so small any statistician would just round it off to p = 0. Usually values smaller than 1 in 10^50 are rounded off to zero anyways. Or at least they were when I was taking statistics in university. Who knows, they may have changed that rule just to preserve abiogenesis.

---

---

So are many theories developed by the Creation community.

You mean like anisotropic light propagation and all of the pathetic attempts to prove the
Great flood really happened?
Please don't try to equate cretinism with real science.

This really just goes to show that unregenerate sinners will believe absolutely anything rather than admitting there is a God who owns them.

Yes, like believing in EVIDENCE, always a surefire way to destroy faith in god(or gods).

---

Aww, the no true Scotsman fallacy. Nicely done.

People who actually understand physics and relativity realize that there is no issue with ASC.

Evidence? You mean you directly observed abiogenesis over 3 billion years ago? Wow, you are old. You guys need to get your stories straight, one atheist says there is no real evidence for abiogenesis, and then you come in here and say it's all based on evidence, huh?

---

---

A large universe with millions of planets allows sufficient permutations of conditions which can spawn life. But that aside. Even if you say that it is simply irrational to think that it happens on its own, I still do not understand the leap that god did it. Not just any god, your god.

---

Even if we are 100% wrong in our theories about how life began, which is doubtful, how is the worlds oldest hypothesis a better explanation? Did we not believe a god hurled lightning bolts down at us until we discovered static discharges in the atmosphere? Did we not once speculate that raindrops were once distraught goddesses weeping over lost lovers before we understood the process? One deity or another was always directly responsible for whatever phenomenon we could not explain until someone did. If we were wrong about those assumptions based on our ignorance, isnt it safe to assume that we are wrong in our original assumption that some supreme being is directly responsible for life

---

Sciences inability to explain the natural origins of life is not my only reason for believing in the God of the Bible, so I am not sure why you act like I made a "leap". It just helps to confirm my reasoning for believing in Him.

Just because it is the oldest hypothesis in no way means it's wrong, that's fallacious thinking. You are also trying to suggest that mechanism disproves agency. Newton had a greater appreciation for God after he formulated his gravitational theories because the mechanism God used was so much more brilliant than he had originally thought.