"No scientific evidence would be sufficient, coyoteman, as we both know. Your mind is made up, and the facts aren't about to get in your way.
This is plain incorrect. If the scientific evidence against some hypothesis was convincing, a scientist, such as coyoteman, would be the first to accept that evidence. If I understand your comment correctly, you are not arguing with scientific evidence however, you are arguing with the use of misapplied probability.
"Over and over, you've been presented with the facts that show it is clearly impossible for life to have been spontaneously formed by coincidence, which only leaves room for creation.
This statement has a number of problems with it.
First off you are claiming that what you have presented are scientific facts yet they are far from even the common use definition of fact. (Again I am referring to the common arguments against Abiogenesis)
Second, probability calculations will not determine what is impossible unless the probability is 0. Anything more than 0 and the phenomenon is still possible. What they can do, and are limited to, is the determination of the likelihood of some phenomenon occurring given a specific set of initial assumptions, conditions and constraints. If any of those are inaccurate the calculation is also inaccurate.
Another problem is the assumption you make that life has to have formed spontaneously, rather than by slowly and incrementally bridging between non-life, pre-life, protolife and then eventually life. This assumption is a direct result of your assumption that life is 'essential' (as an essentialist would describe it).
Yet another problem with your argument is the assumption that life would have formed by 'coincidence'. Life is a by product of the complexity of specific chemical reactions and the resulting molecules. The forming of molecules from atoms is deterministic as is the formation of more complex molecules from simpler ones. Many of the building blocks of RNA are found in space, including a number of amino acids, sugars, and alcohols. That they are found in space indicates that they are easily formed whenever the requisite elements are in contact. Since the majority of chemicals formed in space are the result of the complex atom building within stars and supernovae, the contact between elements as a result of this construction would not be a coincidence. This of course assumes you are using the term 'coincidence' as meaning 'chance' not 'undirected'.
"You choose to reject that, on grounds that you simply refuse to accept this as scientific enough for you.
The main proponents of ID also understand that the 'evidence' you want to put forward is not scientific, which is why Johnson, Behe, Dembski and others want to change the definition of science, and therefore the methodology used by science, to be more ID friendly. Behe even admitted in court that the changes necessary to make their evidence for ID fit scientific methodology would also make Astrology part of science.
"You also refuse to accept as scientific enough, the idea that where there is a clock, there must have been a clockmaker.
Indeed, when you find a watch you know there is a watchmaker. However you have not shown that biology is a watch. Nor have you correctly considered why we know a watch has a watchmaker. We do not identify artifacts simply by their complexity, in fact many artifacts identified as of human construction are anything but complex. On the other hand, unless you are making an argument by definition, which a useless thing to do, complexity is not the sole purview of intelligence.
"I don't know what could be less scientific of you.
Why, because he doesn't subscribe to your definition of what is scientific?
["...coyoteman, would be the first to accept that evidence."]
I have seen no evidence of that assertion.
["...probability calculations will not determine what is impossible unless the probability is 0."]
You are correct in this. The probability is not 0. It is merely so improbable, that practically speaking, it would require definitive proof to refute. There is none such.
["Another problem is the assumption you make that life has to have formed spontaneously, rather than by slowly and incrementally bridging between non-life, pre-life, protolife and then eventually life."]
What you describe here is the spontaneous formation of life, as opposed to the design of life. You simply restate the evolutional theory as it already is argued. What I assert is that the possibility is so remote as to be impossible.
Even using incrementalism, the first steps of life would have required too much specialism of biochemistry, working together toward a purpose, for it to be unguided. Again, you see a clock, and deny the clockmaker. That is unscientific. To disregard evidence is to be unscientific.
["The main proponents of ID also understand that the 'evidence' you want to put forward is not scientific..."]
To claim that it is mere philosophy, is to remove philosophy from science. Try doing that in other disciplines, and we no longer see a table as a table, but a collection of molecules, made up of atoms, elementary particles, energy, etc. It's simply not practical. Philosophy and science are inextricably entwined. How can you come to a conclusion, based on evidence, without any philosophy?
["Nor have you correctly considered why we know a watch has a watchmaker."]
Indeed I have. You have gone far afield of science when you claim that such complexity merely needed the right mix of chemicals, energy and time to form life, the universe and everything, because you do so without anything beyond circumstantial proof, which is open to interpretation.
And you have to really stretch to justify your refusal to simply accept the obvious, that it had to have been created by the purposful actions of a creator, that there is a force in our lives that guides all things.
Can you honestly say that the evidence of the origins and present nature of life isn't best explained by a guiding hand behind it all?
You present evidence, but come to all the wrong conclusions. You say it's all happened because, well, it just did. I say all of your evidence explains that life is guided; it explains adaptation to environments by all living things, it explains the complex interactions of molecules in living things, it explains it all except where God came from, which is a matter of belief. The scientific evidence simply supports the idea of Creation.