What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?

[Astreja]

Do you have a good reason to believe that the probability is wrong. If so I would like to hear it.

My own background as a biology student, conversations with my brother (a professional microbiologist), and the data that I have personally seen.

I believe that the probability of evolution is 1.0 (in other words, a demonstrated reality) and that the probability of abiogenesis is 0.999.... (in other words, almost certainly true but not yet demonstrated experimentally.)

I believe the probability of your god being real is as close to zero as makes no odds, and that it can safely be eliminated as a possibility.

[Ravenshire]

You keep offering the same bullshit assertions with nothing of any substance to back them up. At this point, I can conclude you are nothing more than a troll.

Have you ever studied probability? There is a point where a thing becomes not only improbable, but impossible. That is my position on abiogenesis. It is an impossibility.

Yes, Ive studied probability. I don't think you have, though. The larger the number sets get, the more likely that the improbable becomes, probable, likely, even just shy of certain.

The odds of rolling all sixes with 5 six-sided dice are on in 7,776. What if we roll those same dice, twice? Three times? 100 times? 1,000,000 times? This is why lotteries are routinely won several times each year despite the odds of an individual winner being exceedingly low.

Now, let's look at it from the point of the cosmos. Hundreds of billions of galaxies hosting hundreds of billions of stars over trillions of years. Your odds against were just made more than likely, more than probable. Considering we're here, I'd say it's certain.

You're claim that it can't happen is based on a single roll where you don't get a Yahtzee. Reality is based on billions of billions of rolls. Probability says it's just shy of certain, in fact that it's almost impossibly improbable to not get that result somewhere, somehow. Who are you to argue against probability after claiming I haven't studied it?

Care to prove probability wrong? Please, go roll those Yahtzee dice forty or fifty thousand times and count the number times you get all sixes.

Your arguments from incredulity mean nothing here, troll. Substantiate your claims in some meaningful way or go fuck yourself.

[He lives]

It might be thought … that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood. 

— Francis Crick

I can well understand why you did not quote the preceding sentence in this quote, as it rather undermines your point.  The prior sentence reads, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."  But thanks for showing that you're simply yet another quote mining creatard.

I didn't change the quote. It was at:

https://todayinsci.com/C/Crick_Francis/C...ations.htm

[Ravenshire]

I can well understand why you did not quote the preceding sentence in this quote, as it rather undermines your point.  The prior sentence reads, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."  But thanks for showing that you're simply yet another quote mining creatard.

I didn't change the quote. It was at:

https://todayinsci.com/C/Crick_Francis/C...ations.htm

So, you just stole a quote because you thought it backed your world view and presented it as if it did, without even checking the source to see if it did.

Why should we believe any claim of "study" that you make when you prove you're unwilling to do some simple fact checking?

[Amarok]

Have you ever studied probability? There is a point where a thing becomes not only improbable, but impossible. That is my position on abiogenesis. It is an impossibility.

And it's false

---

Do you have a good reason to believe that the probability is wrong. If so I would like to hear it.

Because it's wrong

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/default.htm

https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/abiogenesis.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...eginning1/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/20...obability/

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life

So all you have left is personnel credulity

---

Wow and misusing  Crick how low can fundies go .

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...cis-crick/

---

I didn't change the quote. It was at:

https://todayinsci.com/C/Crick_Francis/C...ations.htm

You did not change the sentence but excluded a critical sentence . That's just as dishonest .

---

And by the way simply stealing quotes from Random websites is nor impressive and does not make your case.

---

Your hypothesis of self creation does not conform to reasonable logic.

Opinion 

The complexity of DNA is absolute proof of ID over happenstance.

It's not  happenstance. and it does not prove ID no matter how mant quotes you ignorantly throw around .

[Banned]

"You must be a tailor to see the emperor's clothes  And not see that he is naked " 

"You can't see emperors clothes " because your not a tailor sure you can see his ass and penis but he's not naked" Because your not a tailor" 

I can't remember asking you to fantasize about naked emperors, I wanted you to provide some evidence that you have the capacity to understand any form of intelligent designing.

[Silver]

I can't remember asking you to fantasize about naked emperors.

Should've asked me.

[Banned]

He didn't argue that things create themselves. The argument is that chemistry is a thing ... that happens ... naturally, without the need for divine intervention.

So God can't create something which works by itself?
An automatic gearbox doesn't cancel the inventor does it?

[Amarok]

I can't remember asking you to fantasize about naked emperors, 

Apparently allegory is above you .Odd for people who embrace it when comparing evolution to a tornado. And living things to man made objects .   

I wanted you to provide some evidence that you have the capacity to understand any form of intelligent designing.

And it was a request shown to be in flawed . And rejected by better examples of your ideology then you . I suggest you try their model . Instead of more games . What was that about Einstein and insanity again .

---

So God can't create something which works by itself?

Nope 

An automatic gearbox doesn't cancel the inventor does it?

That assumes for no reason  there was an inventor

---

Banned's silly dodge on ID summed up by the movie Dragonslayer 

[Ravenshire]

Well, I see He Lives is running from the realities of probability and Banned is just plain trolling.

Business as usual, then?