The probability argument falls flat when it comes to explaining the past

Thanks, Pro. Argument from authority? If I hadn't quoted Newton would Pro have believed me? Newton's statement is about theories in general, not about abiogenesis. My Newton quote said, basically, "There's no point in adding more componants to a theory than are necessary to explain phenomena and that are also true." Such as statement is obvioulsy coherent and stands apart from the origin of the quote as logical. I'm sorry that you think my arguments ridiculous. My point is that since evolution's only chance of explaining life is that something with incredibly--make that impossibly--low odds happened, then Creationism's explanation of life makes more sense. That was the whole point of my faces-on-a-mountain argument. When we are presented with life, design, and a functioning universe instead of nothing, then the logical answer is God, just as the logical answer to a painting or sculpture is an artist. Creationism does not require leprosy to be incurable, a geocentric universe, a very young Earth, or even for the Bible to be true. Christianity requires the Bible, but belief in a Creator does not. Evolutionists do not prefer abiogenesis because of all the evidence. If there were evidence that abiogenesis could take place, then the probability of abiogenesis happening would be much higher. But all the evidence renders abiogenesis EXTREMELY improbable, as the probability testifies. Don't you see that probability is evidence? If there was a chance that abiogenesis could have happened, then that would warrant it a reasonable hypothesis. However, the evidence that does exist for abiogenesis is very scanty. Pro hasn't actually given any evidence, as the reader will note, so there is nothing for me to refute. "I never said probability is meaningless about determining the chances about the past. I said that it's meaningless when explaining the impossibility of something in the past. And this is only for things that we have evidence for happened."Yes, Pro, you are right. If we had historical evidence that something happened, then this argument would revolve around the historical evidence. The probability argument would become far less important if it were obvious that abiogenesis actually did happen. However, we have no historical evidence. No one was around to witness the origin of life. So that leaves us with scientific evidence. It is important to understand this. The probability of life coming about from chemicals is scientific. A scientist examined the possibility of life coming from chemicals, based off experimentation, and calculated a probability. All the evidence for evolution is scientific. In other words, we have no eyewitness records of evolution happening. So we must resort to experiments and (as Darwin did) observation of current events to explore the past. Experiments can tell us whether or not abiogenesis is feasible. And experiments have told us no! Why? The probability argument is a result of those experiments. It is the result of a chemist calculating the probability of life ever coming from chemicals, based on experiments. And that probability is impossibly low.To give yet another example: Suppose there is a massive sore on my leg. I wonder if a spider caused it. So I conduct thousands of experiments to determine how big spider-caused sores can get. In the end, I conclude that the probability of a spider causing that sore is impossibly low. So I turn to another explanation. Science, in the end, is a search for causes. Probability can be very helpful in determining which causes could feasibly have resulted in a certain effect. If A has a very low probability of evert resulting in R, then unless A is the only explanation for R we should turn to another cause. Abiogenesis is the sole explanation that doesn't require a creator. This is fact. If life wasn't created, and it didn't always exist (and even atheists can't believe that) then it must have come from non-life. This is logic. As a result, evolutionists will do everything they can to scientifically claim that abiogenesis is possible. But abigenesis is statistically improbable. If Abiogenesis is our only theory, then we cannot abandon it. But creationists do not have to (unlike evolutionists) cling to the theory of abiogenesis, as they have a better theory that is not scientifically unfeasible. The quote at the end of Pro's article clearly indicated this: "“We’re looking for a simple, robust chemistry that can explain the earliest origin of RNA or its ancestor,” Hud said." Why is Hud looking for this? Because it is necessary for his theory of evolution, his theory of abiogenesis. Hud is looking to somehow increase the odds of abiogenesis being possible. To return to the wearied raindrop argument by analogy: "The question "What is the chance that i WILL pick a particular grain of sand" is another story. You can't choose a particular grain of sand for the future,you can just describe it. Like: What is the chance that i will pick a cube-shaped grain of sand at random?"OK, that works. Although we are talking theoretically, so it doesn't matter how you know the grain of sand. Returning to abiogenesis, we know what the result looks like, so this problem does not apply. "Then 1:30.000.000 becomes applicable. If asking about the past: "What was the chance that i would have picked this particular grain of sand"? the answer is 1:30.000.000 again,but it already happened,we have proof that it happened,we are holding that grain of sand in our hands."Hmm. I am not sure what Pro is trying to prove here. At any rate, we are holding the grain of sand in our hands concerning abiogenesis. We know the outcome: life exists. However, as I have tried many times to explain, then the probability shifts from the probability that abiogenesis WILL happen to the probability that abiogenesis DID happen. In other words, was abiogenesis the cause of life? Looking at the odds, the answer is clearly NO. However, if we had evidence that abiogenesis definitely DID happen, (Historical evidence, since scientific evidence leads us to impossible odds) then, and only then, would the odds cease to matter. So Pro's only counter-argument would be to provide irrefutable historical proof, and as he says, that is an argument for another time. THIS IS WHY THE PROBABILITY ARGUMENT FAILS WHEN TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE PAST. IT IS MEANINGLESS WHEN TRYING TO PROVE THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF SOMETHING HAPPENING IN THE PAST,OF WHICH WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE FOR.Pro is confusing evidence for life with evidence for abiogenesis. Whenever there are multiple theories in play (as I explained earlier at length) then the probability that one of them happened (or could happen) becomes very important indeed. If the probability is impossibly low for one, then we should reject it. I do not see what is so difficult to understand about this fact.This is what I mean by "Information does not come from chaos.": We do not get working instructions from chance processes as a rule. As a result, the evolutionist claim that the room ful of encylcopedias of DNA information arose from chance is blatently ridiculous. (No offense.) 1. We have concluded that nothing in our physical world is impossible as long as it doesn't break any laws of physics. Not so. Can you win the lottery every day for a year? One could argue that those would break the laws of physics. However, they would not, at least no more than abiogenesis would. Something can be possible scientifically, yet so improbable that it is practically impossible. For example: winning the lottery every day for a year would be impossible, practically speaking, and yet the probability of it happening would be greater than zero. 2. We don't need probabilities to help us determine the chances of something happening in the past (impossibility), since it does nothing to disprove that something.I have tried so hard to get through to Pro, but I have been unable to get him to understand what I see as obvious. If we DON'T KNOW WHETHER SOMETHING HAPPENED IN THE PAST for sure (which is the case with abiogenesis), then probability can help us. We know life exists, but we do not know for sure whether abiogenesis or something else brought about life. If we have result A and two theories for how A came about, X and Y, then probability becomes important in determining which theory is more likely. If the chances of X bringing about A are 1:10,000,000,000,000,000, and the chances of X bringing about B are 1:10, then, all other things being equal, we should choose B as the more reasonable theory as it is far more likely B is actually true. This is all I need to show to win the debate. Probability does not "fall flat" when explaining the past. When we have a result and two competing hypothesis, probability can be very helpful, as it is in this case. 3. Once we've established the 2nd premise, we can conclude that abiogenesis is both mathematically and practically possible,since it doesn't break any laws of nature. (plus we have done multiple experiments to prove it)Neither of the premesis are established, and neither is the conclusion. Abiogenesis is not practically possible, as the odds are so low as to render abiogenesis practically impossible. I have stated this multiple times already in this debate, and it remains a fact. Experiments in this case are irrelevant, as Pro refuses to debate the "proof" for abiogenesis (quite rightly), except for the fact that experiments gave rise to the extremely low probability that gave rise to this whole debate. My summary: probability can be helpful in finding the proper cause for an effect. While the life is unquestionable, abiogenesis (as a means of life coming about) is not an unquestionable fact. And as a result, we CAN use probability to investigate whether abiogenesis took place. Pro: I am sorry if you didn't understand my arguments. Thanks for the debate.