(a) The "evidence" you allude to is not evidence.  There is nothing special about it - many societies have holy books and myths.  They vary.  Each can be subjected to 'literary analysis' and yield similar results.

(b)  Sometimes your arrogance overwhelms.  Those who conjecture (yes, we can happily use that term - those who cleave to absolutes find it self-incriminating, those who have open minds find it honest) the possibility of a multiverse know more than you (or I) will EVER now know about "matter and space and time and energy".  Those who so conjecture are not tacky philosophy board posters who think that throwing out ideas is a good way of undermining an 'opponents' case - regardless of what it says of ones own. You cite undigested phrases from poorly understood inconclusive critical works (like 'QM operators', 'boundary conditions') and feel you have made telling points.  You have only in fact indirectly referred to some text you once read - which offers no support to your pov, but is referred to solely as a destructive attempt.

(c)  I certainly agree that internal consistency is a necessary condition of any explanation - but there are many other conditions (there is a whole literature devoted to what makes a good explanation - best bet is that it is a cluster-concept, with a strong relativistic tendency).   As I never tire of pointing out, the world of Harry Potter is strongly internally consistent: maybe you should become a Potterist.

Yes, that is a summary of what I just said.  Thank you.

I suggest you look into probability theory.  My explanations don't seem to do much for you.

I suggested that I could give you reading material and you rejected it. You have generally insisted on people giving their own account (and then you cut and paste uncited work frequently).

What game are you playing, RF?

 

IamMe complained (admitted actually) that he has heard my explanations before and implied that he was not enamored by them.  I suggested he take up some outside research in that case.

IamMe I walked you through basic probability several months ago.  When evaluating the ability and reasonableness for chance or constrained chance processes to explain an event, one compares the probability against the number of opportunities for chance to act to derive the overall probability.  If this overall probability is less than a threshold, then we can reasonably infer that some other process or mode accounts for the event.  Take for example the observation that 50 coins are laying on a table all heads up.  The unreasonable and irrational person might say that since it is possible that chance could have accounted for the event that person will choose to believe that pure chance does account for the event.  However the reasoned person will note that the odds of all heads is 2^50 and even if someone were to somehow flip the coins once every 5 seconds for about 150 million years the odds will still be just about even that all heads would come up one or more times.  This reasoned person will infer that chance cannot account for this event and someone must have intentionally placed the coins heads up.


Confidence Intervals apply to statistical analysis of empirical data sets.  Perhaps you can explain how confidence intervals apply to pure probability and permutation examples such as these chance hypotheses for chemic generation of life from non-life.

The ID premise has not been properly (according to rules of the scientific method) rebutted or refuted.  You offer nothing whatsoever to falsify it or to demonstrate that the premise is not properly formed or supported.


You have yet to demonstrate any valid "troublesome parts".  I assume that troublesome would refer to some sort of incongruence.


Given our most recent understanding of how biochemical processes work, probability theory, information theory and thermodynamic theory collectively provides the basis to show why the materialistic processes of necessity and chance are insufficient to account for these presumed evolutionary pathways.  Your difficulty and the difficulty of those who cling to materialism is that you hold out hope that life overcame dumb luck, no matter how slim the odds and despite the evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps you are right, my study of statistics has mostly focused on imperial data.

You'll understand I'm skeptical though, when constant reference is made to probability and the math behind it is not presented.