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

It was fun and interesting. It's also interesting to see Con has made false assumptions and mistakes AGAIN. Just to correct you,where you said "So Con's analogy does accomplish nothing" You probably meant Pro,just to clarify that. Con did nothing to disprove my arguments,let's take a look. First of all,Con used Newton's quote in attempt to bolster his claim. This was argument from authority fallacy. While Newton did a great job at explaining laws of motion and "discovering gravity" (for what he is famous,needless to say),he also believed in alchemy. Newton's quote doesn't prove/disprove anything. If Newton knew about evolution/abiogenesis theories and the evidence for them at that time (which did not exist at the time), i doubt that he would make the same quote. Next i recap that we have experimented with amino-accids,proteins,RNA and DNA. A research has been done that i think Con and our audience should check out [1] The Christian view requires fewer assumptions? Yes,but not in the world of science,not in the world of rationalism. It is extremely easy to believe that God created everything. Hmm that seems possible,since science can't explain many things. Well science has refuted many creationist claims that God is necessary. People believed that the world is flat,people believed that bird blood can cure leprosy,people believed that the Earth is the center of the universe,people believed that Earth was made 6000 years ago,. .. just to name a few. We have proven that Earth is older than 6000 years old using radiometric dating. And every type of RMD indicates,when a sample is examined, that the Earth is older than 6000 years. All the creationist beliefs are based on a single book. "But evolutionists prefer abiogenesis simply because it avoids God. " Wrong! A typical straw man. Evolutionists/scientists prefer abiogenesis because there are thousands of evidence supporting it (most of those are about evolution as well),in contrary to creationism,which has,if not 0,then minuscule amount of evidence for reality,and those are just a few simple things we know today,and people knew then when using their brains. And many "abiogenesis believers" do believe in a God. These are known as deists. Although they don't believe in a God resembling anything like a Christian God. We went away from the topic way more than i expected. Although i had to answer these arguments,if you can call them that. 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. "We can conclude, based on probability, that some things definitely never happened (like abiogenesis). And, as I pointed out, if our view of history requires something impossible to happen, it is probably wrong. " Did you ignore my proofs in the last two rounds? Abiogenesis is NOT IMPOSSIBLE,i have proven this. I have also linked my source [1] for you to check out. "The reason evolutionists believe in the abiogenesis hypothesis is because excluding God, it's their only hope of explaining our life-filled world. Unfortunately, abiogenesis is, practically, impossible, which means that abiogenesis should remain a hypothesis and a failed one at that. " *facepalm* Again, a straw man. And i am not going to repeat myself again for the second sentence. I said,and i repeat,that a chance of a raindrop hitting your nose is definite. Let's take your version of the analogy. I want to pick a grain of sand. What is the chance that i will pick a grain of sand? The answer is: definite. But now as i am walking away,i ask myself: "What was the chance that i would have picked this particular grain of sand"? And the answer is 1:30.000.000 (taking your chance). 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? 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. [Caps lock] 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. Now Con's only counter-argument would be that the proofs for abiogenesis don't exist. But i would beg to differ. That is a discussion for another time. "Information does not come from chaos. " This is a really vague claim open to equivocation. If you meant "Order does not come from chaos" or "Order does not come from disorder" I will disagree with you. First answer: It depends on what we perceive as "order" and "chaos". We might be living in a chaotic state,but we perceive it as order. . This is a more philosophical question. Second answer is about 2nd law of thermodynamics [2] (which you might have been referring to). This article contains some extra information about creationism too. So to recap what we have concluded: 1. We have concluded that nothing in our physical world is impossible as long as it doesn't break any laws of physics. 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. 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) Conclusion: Probability argument falls flat when used to disprove the possibility of abiogenesis. I once again thank Con for participating in this debate. It was truly a pleasure. Vote Pro! Sources: . http://www.gtresearchnews.gatech.edu... [1] . http://www.talkorigins.org... [2]