“The math for calculating the odds for ‘any specified order’ may be the same, but ‘any specified order’ is meaningless when applied to naturalism.”
—I didn’t realize I was defending “naturalism”.
“It is still the fallacy of equivocation to equate ‘any specified order’ with a biological amino acid sequence or a set of physical properties for the universe because only one specified order will do.”
—What do you based the assertion on that “that only one specified order will do”? Unless you can base that on something, you are committing the fallacy of thinking that because that’s the way things are that that’s the way they HAVE to be. As I mentioned in my first response “unless one sees that ONE particular configuration as special, there’s no reason to view getting that particular order after a shuffle as “lucky””.
Every life form on the planet has a different DNA sequence than every other life form.
I didn't realize you were defending creation.
"—What do you based the assertion on that “that only one specified order will do”?"
Science demonstrates that specified order is ubiquitous in the physical laws of the universe and in life.
"Unless you can base that on something, you are committing the fallacy of thinking that because that’s the way things are that that’s the way they HAVE to be."
Feel free to propose sets of universal physical laws other than the ones we observe and explain how they would support life. Feel free to propose random, racemic amino-acid chains and explain how those support life. We observe specified order throughout the physical laws of universe and in life.
"As I mentioned in my first response “unless one sees that ONE particular configuration as special, there’s no reason to view getting that particular order after a shuffle as “lucky””."
Which we see in everything from the physical laws of the universe to individual amino-acid sequences in proteins. Absolutely everything we observe wrt life is 'lucky'.