@kellyjay said
How can there be a double standard when one thing lends itself to study and one does not.

The answer is in the question. 🙂

@bigdoggproblem said
The answer is in the question. 🙂

Really, you are comparing apples and oranges, and screaming foul because they are not the same.

@stellspalfie said
Belittling???

How they form effects the numbers!!!! The math in your video describes the odds of a randomly forming protein....but the process is not random!!!!

If I had a 100 metal pipes, each pipe has a red end and blue end. If I randomly dropped them into a container so each pipe touched another pipe what would the odds be that a red end touched a blue end?

...[text shortened]... t would alter the odds, the stronger the magnet the more chance of a blue end of touching a red end.

You are funny! You were complaining about the hypothetical demonstration the video showed concerning how complex a protein is, then you present this! Amazing, just how great are the odds you think you’re magical pipes are up against, and who or how did the magic appear?

@kellyjay said
Really, you are comparing apples and oranges, and screaming foul because they are not the same.

Well, that is my point...they cannot be compared, so in fact you have nothing better to offer (probability-wise) than the random option, as small a chance as that may be.

@bigdoggproblem said
Well, that is my point...they cannot be compared, so in fact you have nothing better to offer (probability-wise) than the random option, as small a chance as that may be.

A double standard would imply that the two are treaded differently even though we could treat them the same way.

@kellyjay said
A double standard would imply that the two are treaded differently even though we could treat them the same way.

I know what it means. I wouldn't use the phrase if I didn't.

@bigdoggproblem said
I know what it means. I wouldn't use the phrase if I didn't.

If you knew that somethings cannot be treated the same way, why say it as if we were doing something wrong? I suppose it is possible I misunderstood your intent, if so I'm sorry.

@kellyjay said
If you knew that somethings cannot be treated the same way, why say it as if we were doing something wrong? I suppose it is possible I misunderstood your intent, if so I'm sorry.

The double standard is not in God vs. random as the origin; it's between the two sides of the debate.

It is poor form to force the other side to defend their own position mathematically while advocating a position that cannot, almost by definition, be subjected to math of any kind.

It is like finding a fault in a symphony when one can't play a musical instrument.

@bigdoggproblem said
The double standard is not in God vs. random as the origin; it's between the two sides of the debate.

It is poor form to force the other side to defend their own position mathematically while advocating a position that cannot, almost by definition, be subjected to math of any kind.

It is like finding a fault in a symphony when one can't play a musical instrument.

Listen everything must line up to avoid contradictory statements. This has to be true with what we can acknowledge are variables we can assign values to and even things we cannot, such as metaphysical questions such as good, evil, righteousness, truth and so on. It is all fair game.

So when claims are made that can be looked at to do to probabilities, yippee! Clashes between one belief and another has to be looked at in the light of what we see today. If different assumptions about the distant past are in conflict, we only have what we see today to really validate one from another.

@kellyjay said
You are funny! You were complaining about the hypothetical demonstration the video showed concerning how complex a protein is, then you present this! Amazing, just how great are the odds you think you’re magical pipes are up against, and who or how did the magic appear?

Magical??? Magnets are not magic! Are you messaging from the 1700's? No wonder you are struggling with this.

@stellspalfie said
Magical??? Magnets are not magic! Are you messaging from the 1700's? No wonder you are struggling with this.

You are suggesting magnets put together proteins, or that the properties of a protein act as your magnetic fields would?

@kellyjay said
You are suggesting magnets put together proteins, or that the properties of a protein act as your magnetic fields would?

No, I think its pretty clear that I didn't suggest either of those things.

@stellspalfie said
No, I think its pretty clear that I didn't suggest either of those things.

I didn’t think the video criticism you gave was just either.

@kellyjay said
Listen everything must line up to avoid contradictory statements. This has to be true with what we can acknowledge are variables we can assign values to and even things we cannot, such as metaphysical questions such as good, evil, righteousness, truth and so on. It is all fair game.

So when claims are made that can be looked at to do to probabilities, yippee! Clashes betw ...[text shortened]... he distant past are in conflict, we only have what we see today to really validate one from another.

We are talking past each other now, and I can't explain my position any more clearly than I have already, so I'll leave it at that.

@bigdoggproblem said
We are talking past each other now, and I can't explain my position any more clearly than I have already, so I'll leave it at that.

No doubt