Let's try this again...Stephen Hawking was presented as evidence that I was asked for about probability.
Ok, that's your first mistake, Stephen Hawking's opinion does not count as evidence - for you to demonstrate your assertions have any merit you need to present the calculations to back them up.
Secondly, we can clearly see Hawking does not share your view, he says the chances are small, not impossible, he then goes on to say that those chances are increased due to the size of the universe. Did you not read the whole piece? He clearly states that "The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions." do you really not understand that the point of his article is the opposite of what you are asserting?
I'll just remind you why this is an issue, you wrote....
"1. we know that there is a creator. The math alone tells us that the probability of a creator is infinitely greater than the assumption of spontaneous existence then we add the science and even previously we talked about famous scientists that believe in a creator for this very reason."
Well I don't know that there is a creator and I believe christians generally take the existence of God on faith, not imaginary mathematical calculations. What you have presented here is an empty assertion, however, when you actually demonstrate these "probabilities" maybe we can discuss them.
Now, I'm not sure how you think that evidence of probability translates into abiolgenesis but I guess that is just more evidence of the importance of reading for comprehension rather than reinventing for the purpose of one's own pride
So you provide a quote on the chances of abiogenesis from an article about the origin of life and have the audacity to question my reading comprehension and ask why I brought up abiogenesis? Do you actually know what that article was about?
lol I highlighted the part that I was using as evidence
I'll say this again as you seem to have difficulty in understanding.
The part you highlighted said "The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small. " what does that mean do you think? Impossible or possible?
Good grief, he goes on to say "The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions."
Your probabilities argument is nothing unless you can provide the maths it's based on, and it's clear that you can't, please stop embarrassing yourself.
Upvote
0