[b_sharp]

"There is just no reasoning with the soup creation myth zealots. :-)"

Why is requiring ID follow the same processes and conditions as every other science being a zealot?

Just as an experiment, do the calculations necessary to produce an accurate probability for the gradual incremental change from a simple chemical complex we would define as nonliving to the more complex chemical complex we define as alive and compare that probability to the probability that an all powerful, all knowing, all encompassing being exists. Tell me what you get and show me your work.

[Southack]

"Just as an experiment, do the calculations necessary to produce an accurate probability for the gradual incremental change from a simple chemical complex we would define as nonliving to the more complex chemical complex we define as alive and compare that probability to the probability that an all powerful, all knowing, all encompassing being exists. Tell me what you get and show me your work."

Sequential data probability is one area where we have already done the math (and yes, the work is shown). The math alone completely rules out the Theory of Evolution, by the way.

Sequential DNA Probability

[jim35]

["Why is requiring ID follow the same processes and conditions as every other science being a zealot?"]

What bothers you the most, is that we use the same evidence that you rely on, but come to a different conclusion. The best argument to refute creationism seems to be a slur against the creationist as a Luddite who believes the Earth is flat, and the stork brings babies. Pure genetic fallacy.

["Just as an experiment..."]

Just as an experiment, when I'm done with yours, why don't you put together a bowl of promordial soup, add whatever ingredients you think will work best, and let me know when new life forms. Tell me what you get and show me your work.