Please stop!!!

[Elduran]

Where exactly did you say the calculations of those odds can be seen? Obviously if they have been worked out you can see them somewhere, backed up with all the reasoning.

And who caluculated the odds of a tornado assembling a Boeing to be those odds, because whoever it was lacked basic knowledge of wind flow and vehicle assembly

 

[On the Narrow Road]

And who caluculated the odds of a tornado assembling a Boeing to be those odds, because whoever it was lacked basic knowledge of wind flow and vehicle assembly

So by your logic it is less likely that a Boeing could be created out of non-living matter of the type needed to make it (by tornado) than it would be for a cell to be formed out of some chemical soup and then to somehow be granted life? Since we know how an aiplane was built and assembled you claim it couldn't happen randomly. Since we don't know how a cell was created and we cannot duplicate that creation, I wonder how you can claim it could happen randomly by chance. IMHO the area where we lack knowledge is not in the airplane field...

 

[Elduran]

So by your logic it is less likely that a Boeing could be created out of non-living matter of the type needed to make it (by tornado) than it would be for a cell to be formed out of some chemical soup and then to somehow be granted life? Since we know how an aiplane was built and assembled you claim it couldn't happen randomly. Since we don't know how a cell was created and we cannot duplicate that creation, I wonder how you can claim it could happen randomly by chance. IMHO the area where we lack knowledge is not in the airplane field...

My point was that certain tools would be required to fit certain components together for an airplane. For example, if there are no rivets or rivet guns in the junkyard, the chance of the riveting being in place is zero, therefore the chance of a Boeing being constructed is zero.

To be honest, the chance is almost certainly zero anyway.

As for life, that has several plausible explanations for it's origin, all of which rely on having the correct components (for want of a better word) in place for the particular stage of development in addition to a long period of time.

The analogy between a Boeing and a living cell is a silly one anyway, as a Boeing is not self-replicating in any way, does not form part of an ongoing process, can not be explained by chemistry and biology, but CAN be explained by looking at the engineering schematics at Boeing.

 

[LordoftheScythe]

<snip>
It's the fact even if a cell is formed by ramdomness they still have to deal with making the cells alive before the law of thermodynamics totally destroy these parts. A dead cell has all the part that a living cells has yet scientists hasn't figure out how to bring life to it. Someone has called this the software problem (putting it in terms of a PC). Evolutionist love to claim time is on their side while the evidence doesn't support this.The idea of giving nature enough time and miracles are possible hasn't been proven true.
Evolutionists tries to take our two worst enemies and made them their allies in their theory; death and time. The laws of thermodynamics help us understand why time isn't a friend. Even time eventually takes it's toll on life also. Yet evolutionist believes given enough time even something with extreme small odds can happen.
<snip>

Why a cell? Why not just a self-replicating molecule? Why would the LoT destroy it for sure? Organization can happen, it just takes energy and a mechanism by which to utilize it. Why is it unreasonable to think even something with a small chance of happening will happen after a long time? You say it has a chance of happening, so it CAN happen. In fact, it did. What do you think makes something "alive?"