[Frumious Bandersnatch]

This is all true, but besides the point. A logical device addresses the method and affects the outcome. IOW, a conclusion may or not may be correct, even though the logic may be.

What I'm addressing here is the fact that an assertion stated as scientific fact should logically be a closed loop. If a position cannot be put in logical terms that can be easily understood and makes logical sense, then either the subject matter is not known well enough or the conclusions are incorrect.

All I'm trying to do is get those who believe in one side or another to put up or shut up on their logic. Thus far, I've either gotten people who want to rewrite the rules or go into what-if scenarios which have little to do with the problem at hand.

Tis simple enough, really. Just using deduction, induction and Occam's razor, justify your position. That's not all that hard to understand (though it may be difficult to do).

Once a logical justification has been formulated, then we can critically examine it to see if it holds water. To this point, no one on either side has successfully made a reasonable defense.

[js1138]

You neglected to refer to my post or its contents,

Second, one cannot assert that an event is improbable without knowing what the event in question is, and in what context it occurred. The event and its context must be described exactly and and fully before probability can be assigned. For example, on cannot say winning the lotto is improbable without knowing the conditions of the event, whether cheating might have been involved, and more importantly, whether it has already been won.

The last condition might seem trivial, but it is not. Nearly everyone on this forum agrees that life came from non-life. For believers, it is explicitly stated in the Bible. So the argument is not about whether non-living matter can become living, but rather, under what conditions.

If one could solve difficult problems in chemistry by assigning probabilities of molecules assembling themselves, I daresay research and development laboratories would be different from what they are. The chemical precursors to life are being studied in the conventional way by conventional science. At some point it may be possible to assign probabilities to a sequence of events. But until we have an actual sequence of events, it is irrational to assign probabilities.

Now that we can all see wht I posted several days ago, try going over my post point by point.