[Dimensio]

They correctly apply the numbers based on the field of probability and statistics.

But where did they originally derive the numbers?

Intuitively, a person knows that my car (a complex thing) didn't just accidentally happen. My brain is far more complex than my car.

Your brain also came into existence through a process that is decidedly different than the process that brought about your car. Specifically, it came about because other things that have brains similar to yours are able to produce imperfect copies of themselves. You are one of the imperfect copies. Automobiles don't tend to make imperfect replicants of themselves, thus the analogy fails.

Life itself is far more complex than anything....so much so that they don't even have a description of what it is.

You are aware that there's not even a consensus on what constitutes life, aren't you?

If you don't think so, then find a corpse and ask a scientist to describe in detail what it is that left that used to be there.

What left? Action potentials within the brain stopped for one reason or another (the reason is typically lack of a chemical -- sodium or potassium -- to maintain their occurance) resulting in cellular death. Without the brain being alive, no signals were sent to maintain the other functions within the body, so they shut down and the cells there died also.

[xzins]

You described the shutdown. You didn't describe "what left."

Also, the analogy does hold. An extremely complex system doesn't just happen. Suggestions that reproduction gets us out of the dilemma simply ignores that the extremely complex biological system includes an extremely complex reproductive system. It's like saying that because the car comes from a factory that makes cars then it could have made itself, or that because it includes a repair code system within its computer memory, then that means it ACTUALLY COULD have made itself."

C'mon now. :>)