Hi Bex,
RAZD talks about dice, but the dice he talks about already exists, including the numbers on it.
Are you sure? or are you
assuming information that you don't know for sure?
I have two dice
(how many sides on each di?)
(what markings are on the faces?)
I throw them several times
(how many times?)
(what do they land on?)
(does anything affect how they land?)
This is a very simple example, but it is completely impossible to calculate the odds of throwing a 7 because you don't know the answers to those questions.
Actually, your weak analogy fails. If we know there are more than one hundred sides on each die, and we know the numbers vary by at least 1 per side, we can confidently say the odds of throwing a 7 are less than one in 10, for example.
You always try to hide evolutionism in what we don't know. But you didn't invent the strategy.
To calculate the odds you have to know all the answers, and thus the problem with calculating "probabilities of life, etc" is that to do it properly you need to know all the answers. You would have to already know how life and molecules etc etc form.
Life forms from life. No big secret.
And men of science do have a lot of knowledge about which atoms combine to form which molecules, which molecules break up, and stuff like that.
This is why all the calculations by all the creationists and IDologists are completely bogus.
It's very simple.
Enjoy.
Simple indeed, evolutionism is. Mask incredulity behind bogus arguments, and continue believing in the impossible.
Have to wonder about the calculations made by RNA-worlders. They reject other abiogenesis scenarios based upon what? Flawed understanding? And what can be said for their counterparts, the evolutionists who reject the RNA-world story? Are they equally clueless?
