And everybody loses their minds

How exactly does one calculate the odds of life forming? And once you do calculate that how do you factor in intelligent design?

Try here: http://bfy.tw/4HfV

So I checked out that link that didn't work and at the bottom of the page it says

Please note: this article uses a hypothetical self-replicating peptide as a model molecule for these calculations. The current theories of abiogenesis are usually based on the "RNA World" theory, where in fact self-replication was first acheived through RNA molecules, rather than DNA molecules.

1. The point is that the prevailing theory for many, many years was based on DNA, not RNA and it did not deter scientists.

2. RNA world theory still has odds at 1 in 4.29 x 10^40. Though the theory is that billions of "trials" were taking place simultaneously, (a) billions is still but a blip when you consider how staggering the odds are, and (b) it doesn't take into account the birthday paradox, which would necessitate that the billions of trials would yield billions of repetitions, blunting the effect of so many simultaneous trials.

RNA world "theory" not fact. The 1 in 10^282 number is derived from a long formula that involves things like number of stars in a galaxy, the number of galaxies in existence, parent stars age, planetary carbon to oxygen ratio, all of the numbers used to calculate 1 in 10^282 are estimated. Just because some guy named Hugh Ross came up with a really big number does not prove intelligent design.

Even if it was 1 in 10^28.2 (which is a fraction of the estimated possibility based on RNA world theory, accepted by most scientists in the field) it's still a miniscule possibility relative to powerball. And scientific theory doesn't mean what you think it means...

scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

This "theory" can not be tested (we can't recreate every possible scenario for life to arise, especially when you take into account the amount of time needed for such an experiment) and therefore can't be confirmed. Seems like the intelligent design "theory" is really just a hypothesis since it can't be tested.

when you say "RNA world 'theory' not fact." you demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific theory, though you've done an excellent job of regurgitating the definition, above.

and, again, you are guilty of a red herring (a/k/a trolling). no one is trying to prove intelligent design. (though, we can certainly start a new thread and go down that path!)

straw man vs. red herring rd 1 fight

though i wonder if you actually know what a straw man is...

This is a brilliant meme! should have been a 100 plus upvoter! In a few days,... resubmit,... different template,.. and change it up a bit. This is good!!!!!