“You brought it up a second time after I already told you of Crick’s retraction of that position in light of scientific advances. This is no longer a mistake, it is dishonesty to use materials known to be false.”
Oh no, the quote police are after me!
Hey, dude, I quoted Frances Crick straight out of a book he wrote in 1981 called Life Itself. If that doesn’t meet with your approval, too darn bad. He had already co-discovered DNA at the time he wrote it, so he was hardly a babe in the woods.
I am not aware that he retracted it. I suggest you provide documentation. But even if he did, the point is that at one time he realized how unlikely the random origin of life is. If he really did retract it, it is probably only because the PC police got after him.
And by the way, you still don’t have a clue about the probability of a random origin of life. But then that’s very common for the mathematically illiterate.
Use something once. Told it's wrong. Use it again to the same person. Not good.
I am not aware that he retracted it. I suggest you provide documentation.
here You could have asked for it the first time if you did not believe me.
But even if he did, the point is that at one time he realized how unlikely the random origin of life is. If he really did retract it, it is probably only because the PC police got after him.
Nice try on the PC thing, please remove the tin foil hat. He retracted it because of advances in science that he admittedly did not anticipate. His ideas of the possible mechanisms of origin did not include the simpler, more probable mechanisms later discovered.
I expect that I will not see Crick disingenuously quoted out of context again?
And by the way, you still don’t have a clue about the probability of a random origin of life.
Neither do you. In fact, all we have are guesses about probability that have an a priori assumption that we are the desired end result, thus invalidating the entire exercise.