Wait a minute. I got confused. You aren't the second person to bring this up, it was you who brought it up both times.
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.
What could I expect, it is coming from the ID movement, which is chock-full of lies, half-truths, out-of-context quotes and shoddy agenda-driven "research."
“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.