A valid model represents some subset of reality it wishes to study. If a model has factors not in that reality, it is not valid. Your quote has this 180o off.
I still see no alternative proposal.
I have given anti-IDers and anti-creationists the benefit of every doubt. The magnitude of the numbers are just too great. I have been more than fair in giving spontaneous generation of life a chance. More fair than I have been to the creationist and ID desired result. Consider:
I have assumed that amino acids existed from the instant the planet formed, and in enough quantities to prevent starving or steady state equilibrium. Surely, C, H, O, N, and P had to first work out efficient molecular arrangements, and this took some time.
I have assumed that enough energy to facilitate the necessary reactions was continuously present throughout the local densities where the molecules would form. Surely there would be moments of insufficient solar, geothermal, and electric (lightning / plasma) energy and moments where large amounts of these same energies would be destructive.
I assumed a geometric curve for genetic efficiencies of scale. Nothing in empiric data suggest anything more ambitious than linear or maybe quadratic curves.
I assumed that the chemical assembly of the molecule was all that was required for life. We have no understanding of where or how the “spark of life” enters the process. So this crucial aspect of ID and creationism is simply ignored to give randomness the greatest chance of success.
All this generosity to the opponents of ID and creationism in making the calculation, and your very professional and scientifically rigorous assessment: garbage, ludicrous, et al.
LOL. Barricade yourself with Huxley’s monkeys if you wish. The rest of us will continue to seek the truth.
Definitely not an English major ...
One can construct a linear curve with a steeper slope than a "geometric" curve. Your statement makes no sense. The fact that you won't release your solution makes it very suspect. Perhaps you don't have a "solution" ...
Which is more probable. The spontaneous generation of life OR the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, everlasting God?
LOL. You've just destroyed the validity of modeling entirely. Go back to that model of a tornado I posted earlier. Are real tornadoes contained within glass jars? No? Obviously, by your logic, this model is invalid.
Get real. The model is not the thing itself. So long as it accurately reflects the aspect of the real thing we are studying, no amount of handwaving by you will make it invalid.
I still see no alternative proposal.
Nobody is required to provide one in order to demonstrate the absurdity of your calculations. They fall apart all by themselves, on their own merits - or lack thereof - regardless of whether alternatives exist or what the merits of such alternatives might be.
I have given anti-IDers and anti-creationists the benefit of every doubt. The magnitude of the numbers are just too great.
The magnitude of the numbers you invented with no basis in reality? Convenient, that.
The rest of us will continue to seek the truth.
Obviously not. It is increasingly apparent that you are simply inventing this schema as a means of propping up a predetermined conclusion, that this is not a search for truth at all, but is instead a search for a rationalization.