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

[Amarok]

However due to the amazing complexity of the DNA molecule, abiogenesis is an impossibility just like it is an impossibility for nature to create a encyclopedia when there is a windstorm with lightening.

Hoyles fallacy continues and once again man made objects to biological form unjustly . Once again comparing abiogenesis to a storm or other natural disaster unjustly .

The hypothesis is that conditions were just right for life to come about by extraordinary means.

Nope the theory is condition were correct on earth that life emerged . By totally mundane chemistry . Magic god voodoo is the only extraordinary means being postulated here . 

I don't think you really understand just how improbable abiogenesis is.

Quite the contrary you have no clue how probable it is . 

Happenstance is just another word meaning abiogenesis. The whole premise behind abiogenesis is happenstance.

Nope abiogenesis has a very different definition to happenstance no matter how much you wish otherwise.

[He lives]

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.

It is a good thing that you didn't take any statistics classes.

[Amarok]

It is a good thing that you didn't take any statistics classes

nor did you i'm guessing otherwise refuting this should be easy  right ?

[He lives]

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.

We are certainly here, but it is not due to abiogenesis.

[Ravenshire]

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.

We are certainly here, but it is not due to abiogenesis.

What? No rebuttal? Just another worthless fucking assertion? C'mon, amaze us with your probability and statistics prowess. You seem to be claiming to be a fucking know-it-all. Fucking well prove it, troll.

[He lives]

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?

Francis Crick also believed in panspermia.

[Amarok]

Francis Crick also believed in panspermia

You brought him up . Nice back peddling . 

---

We are certainly here, but it is not due to abiogenesis.

Claims claims claims . And more credulity .

[He lives]

We are certainly here, but it is not due to abiogenesis.

What? No rebuttal? Just another worthless fucking assertion? C'mon, amaze us with your probability and statistics prowess. You seem to be claiming to be a fucking know-it-all. Fucking well prove it, troll.

You are rude and crude and obviously don't believe the statistics I posted. You just want to argue.

[Ravenshire]

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?

Francis Crick also believed in panspermia.

So the fuck what?!? It still doesn't justify your lack of fact checking when you quote mined him.

What? No rebuttal? Just another worthless fucking assertion? C'mon, amaze us with your probability and statistics prowess. You seem to be claiming to be a fucking know-it-all. Fucking well prove it, troll.

You are rude and crude and obviously don't believe the statistics I posted. You just want to argue.

Again, no rebuttal? The statistics you posted are, for the most part, pulled out of someones ass. That aside, they're irrelevant in the face of probability. Of course, you wouldn't fucking know that because you never studied probability. If you had, you'd know better than to argue the improbability of life considering the size of the number set the universe represents.

Want to argue? Sometimes. Enjoy the argument? Usually. Have fun calling ignorant assholes like you on their bullshit? I abso-fucking-lutely enjoy that. Rude and crude while I do it? It really depends on my opponent. When it's someone as intellectually dishonest as you, I don't much bother restraining myself.

Now, are you going to actually support your assertions or are you going to troll some more. I'll enjoy making mince-meat of you either way, but I'm kinda curious if you have any intellectual honesty or not. I'm guessing not.

[Amarok]

You are rude and crude and obviously don't believe the statistics I posted. You just want to argue.

Big deal if he is . And your statistics are wrong . So of course he's going argue in the face of falsehood .

---

Francis Crick also believed in panspermia.

So what you still quotemined him. You excluded a portion of his statement to push your agenda