“Use something once. Told it’s wrong. Use it again to the same person. Not good.”
Excuse me, but you are making more of a fool of yourself with each post. Are you seriously telling me that I am violating some ethical rule by quoting the co-discoverer of DNA straight out of his own book? So he revised his views, and that means I am not allowed to quote him. According that rule, nobody would ever be able to quote anyone.
By the way, the link you sent was a two-pager of new twists in the ongoing wild speculation about how life could have started. It contains no real results, and no calculation of odds at all — probably because the authors have good reason to avoid those considerations and hope nobody brings up the subject.
So what is the upshot? That the odds of a functional cell forming at random has been revised up from 1/10^40,000 to 1/10^39,000? I doubt that either you *or* Crick are capable of even comprehending such probabilities let alone estimating them.
As for Watson and Crick, I get the impression that they think they *invented* DNA rather than just discovered it.
You brought up Crick as an appeal to authority. That is, you were using a view of Crick's that supported your side in the debate. However, that view was considered by Crick himself to be incorrect. What's really nice in this is that you yourself established Crick as an authority to be trusted. Thus, Crick's retraction and statement to the opposite of your point works against you.
You essentially debated my side. Thanks.
According that rule, nobody would ever be able to quote anyone.
According to that rule, nobody should ever quote only half the story. That is called taking something out of context, a dishonest debate device. First time's a mistake, second time after notification is on purpose. Dishonesty in the ID movement rears its ugly head again.
By the way, the link you sent was a two-pager of new twists in the ongoing wild speculation about how life could have started.
You brought him up as an authority, he refuted you. Live with it. Next time don't cite from the Creationist Handbook, and choose your sources more wisely.
That the odds of a functional cell forming at random has been revised up from 1/10^40,000 to 1/10^39,000?
Please show the methodology behind those numbers.