Ark encounter

[Audie]

I know this was posted up here a number of years ago and although not keeping with the thread, it does cover a number of ideas that have been commented on in the thread.

Ben Stein's No Intelligence Allowed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

I've watched this a couple of times. I thought there were some really good points brought up in it.

An example of a good point ?

I could give you a good point but I doubt you would find it good.

I will take that as meaning there were no defensible points made.

[Audie]

I know this was posted up here a number of years ago and although not keeping with the thread, it does cover a number of ideas that have been commented on in the thread.

Ben Stein's No Intelligence Allowed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

I've watched this a couple of times. I thought there were some really good points brought up in it.

An example of a good point ?

I could give you a good point but I doubt you would find it good.

I will take that as meaning there were no defensible points made.

[Katabole]

An example of a good point ?

Sure. Here's some math.

Mathematical chances of a DNA molecule forming at random from a mindless, unguided process.

1:1 X 10^40000. That number is a 1 followed by 40,000 zeroes. That number is greater than the number of atoms in the known Universe.

Enzymes are formed from molecules. It requires enzymes to form genes, and genes to form proteins, and it takes 250 proteins in exactly the right order to form a working cell. The mathematical chances of that happening are:

1:1 X 10^90000. That number is a 1 followed by 90,000 zeroes.

Those equations come from Professor Vikram Singh (he's not a Christian), professor of applied mathematics at Cardiff University in Wales.

As it is stated in the movie, the mathematical chances of life occurring at random are essentially zero. Something has to alter nature in order for life to begin. As Christians, we believe that something to be God.

The chances of winning the Powerball Lottery in the USA are 1:1 x 175^6 or one chance in 175 000 000.

I do not know about you Audie but I would rather take my chances attempting to win the Powerball lottery as I would have more success doing so, then somehow thinking that life can possibly develop at random without a Creator. I do not know any bookie in Las Vegas who would take those odds.

[Audie]

"abelcainsbrother"]

First off,don't be so sensitive as we only know you based on what you post and you are anti-flood whenever it comes up,which does show a bias.

So lets see, the honest thing for you to do, is to make up some outlandish lies about me and then say the fault is entirely with me, because I am sensitive.

You are pro-flood, does that show a bias?

If I consistently say that Australia really exists, is that bias?

It is you that have never provided evidence or reasons why you accept evolution

Not true, but never mind.

.Whenever you and me have discussed evolution you just deny all of the evidence and reasons why I reject evolution

You have never given any evidence against ToE. Remember me asking for at least one fact? You absolutely cannot provide even one.

Why dont you admit that here? Good place for it.

"I, abe, am not able to provide even one fact contrary to ToE"

.I explain to you that based on the evidence I would reject evolution even if I was an atheist

You truly do not need to say that again. You dont know the evidence, dont understand it, and evidently no amount would ever be enough.

and yet your only response is to claim I'm ignorant about it

"only" response, and then list two.

You are in fact profoundly ignorant about it, and about earth science.
I can see you dont know that, but it is obvious to anyone who is educated.

and you appeal to majority opinion in the scientific community

So lets see. Your astonishing claim to know more than the entire world scientific community is not in any way suspect, rather, the whole problem is a logical fallacy on MY part?

.I do understand evolution and I have very legit reasons why I reject evolution and you don't hear me using the normal talking points most Christians use.I'm basing it on what honest evolutionists and former evolutionists point out and I verify it to make sure it is right.

I am aware that you think you understand it.

Meanwhile you seem to not even question evolution and just accept it while looking at things from only that perspectiv

I have read a lot of things said about evolution that I dont think are correct.
That I've not discussed them with you is hardly justification for you making up more calumny about me, like "just accept it".

.Then you expect me to provide peer reviewed reasons why evolution is not right, which you already know does not exist.

Nonsense. Of course I dont expect you to provide it. I know and you know it does not exist.

What i find so completely weird about you is that you cant take such a broad hint that there could be something wrong with your ideas.

But you just accept it while overlooking the many reasons I cannot accept it.

No, I dont "just accept it". Quit making things up. I understand it. there is a huge difference.

You dont accept it because of two things, as I see it. Your chosen reading of the bible, and your wacky ideas about evolution. If my understanding of evolution were like yours, I would not believe it either.

Also I'm not a young earth creationist so bringing up the age of ice does not apply to me.

[/quote][/quote]

Sure it does. The ice proves your flood never happened.

[Audie]

An example of a good point ?

Sure. Here's some math.

Mathematical chances of a DNA molecule forming at random from a mindless, unguided process.

1:1 X 10^40000. That number is a 1 followed by 40,000 zeroes. That number is greater than the number of atoms in the known Universe.

Enzymes are formed from molecules. It requires enzymes to form genes, and genes to form proteins, and it takes 250 proteins in exactly the right order to form a working cell. The mathematical chances of that happening are:

1:1 X 10^90000. That number is a 1 followed by 90,000 zeroes.

Those equations come from Professor Vikram Singh (he's not a Christian), professor of applied mathematics at Cardiff University in Wales.

As it is stated in the movie, the mathematical chances of life occurring at random are essentially zero. Something has to alter nature in order for life to begin. As Christians, we believe that something to be God.

The chances of winning the Powerball Lottery in the USA are 1:1 x 175^6 or one chance in 175 000 000.

I do not know about you Audie but I would rather take my chances attempting to win the Powerball lottery as I would have more success doing so, then somehow thinking that life can possibly develop at random without a Creator. I do not know any bookie in Las Vegas who would take those odds.

And you have gone through the biochemistry to know that the damn lies and statistics are correct?

It certainly is a fact that all manner of quite complex organic molecules
self assemble under a wide variety of conditions.

Given 330 million cubic miles of water, and the fantasticatillion number of
atoms, the speed with which they interact, and some few millions of years to work with, any reaction that is possible is going to happen.

Assembling an entire DNA molecule for, say, a hop toad, from a soup of atoms
is of course not going to happen. It is a false argument, nobody has ever proposed such a thing.

Is your main idea here that evoltuion is impossible, or that life had to be started by a god, and then could evolve from there?

[Audie]

An example of a good point ?

Sure. Here's some math.

Mathematical chances of a DNA molecule forming at random from a mindless, unguided process.

1:1 X 10^40000. That number is a 1 followed by 40,000 zeroes. That number is greater than the number of atoms in the known Universe.

Enzymes are formed from molecules. It requires enzymes to form genes, and genes to form proteins, and it takes 250 proteins in exactly the right order to form a working cell. The mathematical chances of that happening are:

1:1 X 10^90000. That number is a 1 followed by 90,000 zeroes.

Those equations come from Professor Vikram Singh (he's not a Christian), professor of applied mathematics at Cardiff University in Wales.

As it is stated in the movie, the mathematical chances of life occurring at random are essentially zero. Something has to alter nature in order for life to begin. As Christians, we believe that something to be God.

The chances of winning the Powerball Lottery in the USA are 1:1 x 175^6 or one chance in 175 000 000.

I do not know about you Audie but I would rather take my chances attempting to win the Powerball lottery as I would have more success doing so, then somehow thinking that life can possibly develop at random without a Creator. I do not know any bookie in Las Vegas who would take those odds.

And you have gone through the biochemistry to know that the damn lies and statistics are correct?

It certainly is a fact that all manner of quite complex organic molecules
self assemble under a wide variety of conditions.

Given 330 million cubic miles of water, and the fantasticatillion number of
atoms, the speed with which they interact, and some few millions of years to work with, any reaction that is possible is going to happen.

Assembling an entire DNA molecule for, say, a hop toad, from a soup of atoms
is of course not going to happen. It is a false argument, nobody has ever proposed such a thing.

Is your main idea here that evoltuion is impossible, or that life had to be started by a god, and then could evolve from there?

[Nessa]

An example of a good point ?

Sure. Here's some math.

Mathematical chances of a DNA molecule forming at random from a mindless, unguided process.

1:1 X 10^40000. That number is a 1 followed by 40,000 zeroes. That number is greater than the number of atoms in the known Universe.

Enzymes are formed from molecules. It requires enzymes to form genes, and genes to form proteins, and it takes 250 proteins in exactly the right order to form a working cell. The mathematical chances of that happening are:

1:1 X 10^90000. That number is a 1 followed by 90,000 zeroes.

Those equations come from Professor Vikram Singh (he's not a Christian), professor of applied mathematics at Cardiff University in Wales.

As it is stated in the movie, the mathematical chances of life occurring at random are essentially zero. Something has to alter nature in order for life to begin. As Christians, we believe that something to be God.

The chances of winning the Powerball Lottery in the USA are 1:1 x 175^6 or one chance in 175 000 000.

I do not know about you Audie but I would rather take my chances attempting to win the Powerball lottery as I would have more success doing so, then somehow thinking that life can possibly develop at random without a Creator. I do not know any bookie in Las Vegas who would take those odds.

Loved the clip in the doco where theres a cartoon of dawkins trying to do the slot machines with these kind of probabilities. damn it! c'mon mother nature! then continues to kick the machine

[Audie]

An example of a good point ?

Sure. Here's some math.

Mathematical chances of a DNA molecule forming at random from a mindless, unguided process.

1:1 X 10^40000. That number is a 1 followed by 40,000 zeroes. That number is greater than the number of atoms in the known Universe.

Enzymes are formed from molecules. It requires enzymes to form genes, and genes to form proteins, and it takes 250 proteins in exactly the right order to form a working cell. The mathematical chances of that happening are:

1:1 X 10^90000. That number is a 1 followed by 90,000 zeroes.

Those equations come from Professor Vikram Singh (he's not a Christian), professor of applied mathematics at Cardiff University in Wales.

As it is stated in the movie, the mathematical chances of life occurring at random are essentially zero. Something has to alter nature in order for life to begin. As Christians, we believe that something to be God.

The chances of winning the Powerball Lottery in the USA are 1:1 x 175^6 or one chance in 175 000 000.

I do not know about you Audie but I would rather take my chances attempting to win the Powerball lottery as I would have more success doing so, then somehow thinking that life can possibly develop at random without a Creator. I do not know any bookie in Las Vegas who would take those odds.

Loved the clip in the doco where theres a cartoon of dawkins trying to do the slot machines with these kind of probabilities. damn it! c'mon mother nature! then continues to kick the machine

The whole film does have a cartoonish aspect to it, for sure.

[Nessa]

An example of a good point ?

Sure. Here's some math.

Mathematical chances of a DNA molecule forming at random from a mindless, unguided process.

1:1 X 10^40000. That number is a 1 followed by 40,000 zeroes. That number is greater than the number of atoms in the known Universe.

Enzymes are formed from molecules. It requires enzymes to form genes, and genes to form proteins, and it takes 250 proteins in exactly the right order to form a working cell. The mathematical chances of that happening are:

1:1 X 10^90000. That number is a 1 followed by 90,000 zeroes.

Those equations come from Professor Vikram Singh (he's not a Christian), professor of applied mathematics at Cardiff University in Wales.

As it is stated in the movie, the mathematical chances of life occurring at random are essentially zero. Something has to alter nature in order for life to begin. As Christians, we believe that something to be God.

The chances of winning the Powerball Lottery in the USA are 1:1 x 175^6 or one chance in 175 000 000.

I do not know about you Audie but I would rather take my chances attempting to win the Powerball lottery as I would have more success doing so, then somehow thinking that life can possibly develop at random without a Creator. I do not know any bookie in Las Vegas who would take those odds.

Loved the clip in the doco where theres a cartoon of dawkins trying to do the slot machines with these kind of probabilities. damn it! c'mon mother nature! then continues to kick the machine

The whole film does have a cartoonish aspect to it, for sure.

Did you watch it?

[Audie]

An example of a good point ?

Sure. Here's some math.

Mathematical chances of a DNA molecule forming at random from a mindless, unguided process.

1:1 X 10^40000. That number is a 1 followed by 40,000 zeroes. That number is greater than the number of atoms in the known Universe.

Enzymes are formed from molecules. It requires enzymes to form genes, and genes to form proteins, and it takes 250 proteins in exactly the right order to form a working cell. The mathematical chances of that happening are:

1:1 X 10^90000. That number is a 1 followed by 90,000 zeroes.

Those equations come from Professor Vikram Singh (he's not a Christian), professor of applied mathematics at Cardiff University in Wales.

As it is stated in the movie, the mathematical chances of life occurring at random are essentially zero. Something has to alter nature in order for life to begin. As Christians, we believe that something to be God.

The chances of winning the Powerball Lottery in the USA are 1:1 x 175^6 or one chance in 175 000 000.

I do not know about you Audie but I would rather take my chances attempting to win the Powerball lottery as I would have more success doing so, then somehow thinking that life can possibly develop at random without a Creator. I do not know any bookie in Las Vegas who would take those odds.

Loved the clip in the doco where theres a cartoon of dawkins trying to do the slot machines with these kind of probabilities. damn it! c'mon mother nature! then continues to kick the machine

The whole film does have a cartoonish aspect to it, for sure.

Did you watch it?

as much of it as it took to get the idea. so I take it back, I cannot say the "whole" film.

have you read any critique of it?

Here is some discussion of the "odds" argument.

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life

May I predict your response?

[abelcainsbrother]

"abelcainsbrother"]

First off,don't be so sensitive as we only know you based on what you post and you are anti-flood whenever it comes up,which does show a bias.

So lets see, the honest thing for you to do, is to make up some outlandish lies about me and then say the fault is entirely with me, because I am sensitive.

You are pro-flood, does that show a bias?

If I consistently say that Australia really exists, is that bias?

It is you that have never provided evidence or reasons why you accept evolution

Not true, but never mind.

.Whenever you and me have discussed evolution you just deny all of the evidence and reasons why I reject evolution

You have never given any evidence against ToE. Remember me asking for at least one fact? You absolutely cannot provide even one.

Why dont you admit that here? Good place for it.

"I, abe, am not able to provide even one fact contrary to ToE"

.I explain to you that based on the evidence I would reject evolution even if I was an atheist

You truly do not need to say that again. You dont know the evidence, dont understand it, and evidently no amount would ever be enough.

and yet your only response is to claim I'm ignorant about it

"only" response, and then list two.

You are in fact profoundly ignorant about it, and about earth science.
I can see you dont know that, but it is obvious to anyone who is educated.

and you appeal to majority opinion in the scientific community

So lets see. Your astonishing claim to know more than the entire world scientific community is not in any way suspect, rather, the whole problem is a logical fallacy on MY part?

.I do understand evolution and I have very legit reasons why I reject evolution and you don't hear me using the normal talking points most Christians use.I'm basing it on what honest evolutionists and former evolutionists point out and I verify it to make sure it is right.

I am aware that you think you understand it.

Meanwhile you seem to not even question evolution and just accept it while looking at things from only that perspectiv

I have read a lot of things said about evolution that I dont think are correct.
That I've not discussed them with you is hardly justification for you making up more calumny about me, like "just accept it".

.Then you expect me to provide peer reviewed reasons why evolution is not right, which you already know does not exist.

Nonsense. Of course I dont expect you to provide it. I know and you know it does not exist.

What i find so completely weird about you is that you cant take such a broad hint that there could be something wrong with your ideas.

But you just accept it while overlooking the many reasons I cannot accept it.

No, I dont "just accept it". Quit making things up. I understand it. there is a huge difference.

You dont accept it because of two things, as I see it. Your chosen reading of the bible, and your wacky ideas about evolution. If my understanding of evolution were like yours, I would not believe it either.

Also I'm not a young earth creationist so bringing up the age of ice does not apply to me.

[/quote]

Sure it does. The ice proves your flood never happened.[/quote]

You like to play the avoid the point game,that is OK because the information I give is valuable to somebody else and they will know who is right and who is wrong.No matter how educated you might be you cannot stop the truth,like you think.The truth will shine through to those who seek.

[Audie]

"abelcainsbrother"]

First off,don't be so sensitive as we only know you based on what you post and you are anti-flood whenever it comes up,which does show a bias.

So lets see, the honest thing for you to do, is to make up some outlandish lies about me and then say the fault is entirely with me, because I am sensitive.

You are pro-flood, does that show a bias?

If I consistently say that Australia really exists, is that bias?

It is you that have never provided evidence or reasons why you accept evolution

Not true, but never mind.

.Whenever you and me have discussed evolution you just deny all of the evidence and reasons why I reject evolution

You have never given any evidence against ToE. Remember me asking for at least one fact? You absolutely cannot provide even one.

Why dont you admit that here? Good place for it.

"I, abe, am not able to provide even one fact contrary to ToE"

.I explain to you that based on the evidence I would reject evolution even if I was an atheist

You truly do not need to say that again. You dont know the evidence, dont understand it, and evidently no amount would ever be enough.

and yet your only response is to claim I'm ignorant about it

"only" response, and then list two.

You are in fact profoundly ignorant about it, and about earth science.
I can see you dont know that, but it is obvious to anyone who is educated.

and you appeal to majority opinion in the scientific community

So lets see. Your astonishing claim to know more than the entire world scientific community is not in any way suspect, rather, the whole problem is a logical fallacy on MY part?

.I do understand evolution and I have very legit reasons why I reject evolution and you don't hear me using the normal talking points most Christians use.I'm basing it on what honest evolutionists and former evolutionists point out and I verify it to make sure it is right.

I am aware that you think you understand it.

Meanwhile you seem to not even question evolution and just accept it while looking at things from only that perspectiv

I have read a lot of things said about evolution that I dont think are correct.
That I've not discussed them with you is hardly justification for you making up more calumny about me, like "just accept it".

.Then you expect me to provide peer reviewed reasons why evolution is not right, which you already know does not exist.

Nonsense. Of course I dont expect you to provide it. I know and you know it does not exist.

What i find so completely weird about you is that you cant take such a broad hint that there could be something wrong with your ideas.

But you just accept it while overlooking the many reasons I cannot accept it.

No, I dont "just accept it". Quit making things up. I understand it. there is a huge difference.

You dont accept it because of two things, as I see it. Your chosen reading of the bible, and your wacky ideas about evolution. If my understanding of evolution were like yours, I would not believe it either.

Also I'm not a young earth creationist so bringing up the age of ice does not apply to me.

Sure it does. The ice proves your flood never happened.[/quote]

You like to play the avoid the point game,

He says, as he so carefully avoids all the points I make. Any "point" you may think you make is vapourware; "avoid it"? Game? Surely you are joking.

that is OK because the information I give is valuable to somebody else and they will know who is right and who is wrong

.

Information that is entirely free of data. Interesting concept.
Who other than you will have problems sorting that out?

No matter how educated you might be you cannot stop the truth,like you think.The truth will shine through to those who seek.

And you are right, no matter how uneducated you are?

That fact that there was not flood, there was no gap, no "former world"
as you imagine, the fact that you nor anyone can produce one fact contrary to ToE or the proof of no flood... truths of that sort shone thru the centuries of
ignorance and superstition, for a some anyway, many many years ago.

Fortunately, you are unlikely to drag anyone but yourself back into the 17th century.

PS Polar ice disproves your flood, oh artful dodger of the point.

[abelcainsbrother]

"abelcainsbrother"]

First off,don't be so sensitive as we only know you based on what you post and you are anti-flood whenever it comes up,which does show a bias.

So lets see, the honest thing for you to do, is to make up some outlandish lies about me and then say the fault is entirely with me, because I am sensitive.

You are pro-flood, does that show a bias?

If I consistently say that Australia really exists, is that bias?

It is you that have never provided evidence or reasons why you accept evolution

Not true, but never mind.

.Whenever you and me have discussed evolution you just deny all of the evidence and reasons why I reject evolution

You have never given any evidence against ToE. Remember me asking for at least one fact? You absolutely cannot provide even one.

Why dont you admit that here? Good place for it.

"I, abe, am not able to provide even one fact contrary to ToE"

.I explain to you that based on the evidence I would reject evolution even if I was an atheist

You truly do not need to say that again. You dont know the evidence, dont understand it, and evidently no amount would ever be enough.

and yet your only response is to claim I'm ignorant about it

"only" response, and then list two.

You are in fact profoundly ignorant about it, and about earth science.
I can see you dont know that, but it is obvious to anyone who is educated.

and you appeal to majority opinion in the scientific community

So lets see. Your astonishing claim to know more than the entire world scientific community is not in any way suspect, rather, the whole problem is a logical fallacy on MY part?

.I do understand evolution and I have very legit reasons why I reject evolution and you don't hear me using the normal talking points most Christians use.I'm basing it on what honest evolutionists and former evolutionists point out and I verify it to make sure it is right.

I am aware that you think you understand it.

Meanwhile you seem to not even question evolution and just accept it while looking at things from only that perspectiv

I have read a lot of things said about evolution that I dont think are correct.
That I've not discussed them with you is hardly justification for you making up more calumny about me, like "just accept it".

.Then you expect me to provide peer reviewed reasons why evolution is not right, which you already know does not exist.

Nonsense. Of course I dont expect you to provide it. I know and you know it does not exist.

What i find so completely weird about you is that you cant take such a broad hint that there could be something wrong with your ideas.

But you just accept it while overlooking the many reasons I cannot accept it.

No, I dont "just accept it". Quit making things up. I understand it. there is a huge difference.

You dont accept it because of two things, as I see it. Your chosen reading of the bible, and your wacky ideas about evolution. If my understanding of evolution were like yours, I would not believe it either.

Also I'm not a young earth creationist so bringing up the age of ice does not apply to me.

Sure it does. The ice proves your flood never happened.

You like to play the avoid the point game,

He says, as he so carefully avoids all the points I make. Any "point" you may think you make is vapourware; "avoid it"? Game? Surely you are joking.

that is OK because the information I give is valuable to somebody else and they will know who is right and who is wrong

.

Information that is entirely free of data. Interesting concept.
Who other than you will have problems sorting that out?

No matter how educated you might be you cannot stop the truth,like you think.The truth will shine through to those who seek.

And you are right, no matter how uneducated you are?

That fact that there was not flood, there was no gap, no "former world"
as you imagine, the fact that you nor anyone can produce one fact contrary to ToE or the proof of no flood... truths of that sort shone thru the centuries of
ignorance and superstition, for a some anyway, many many years ago.

Fortunately, you are unlikely to drag anyone but yourself back into the 17th century.

PS Polar ice disproves your flood, oh artful dodger of the point.[/quote]

You've got your evolution blinders on.Take them off so you can see more clearly.Because if I had them on I wouldn't be able to see the fossils that shows the much different life that lived in the former world The only way you can prove me wrong is to show how they prove they were evolving and you cannot do it.I just removed fossils from you,you cannot use them for evidence for evolution now. They had nothing to do with Noah's flood too.

[hughfarey]

Yes and no, Audie. I did say, in so many words, that to my knowledge the development of two non-interbreeding groups of interbreeding organisms from a single group of interbreeding organisms has not been shown in a laboratory. I believe that to be true. However I gave numerous instances of this being in progress outside the laboratory, and gave the examples of lions and tigers, and cows and yaks, as instances where the division is partially complete, in that the offspring of the two groups is sterile. If I had given examples of closely related species which did not mate at all, then no doubt abelcainsbrother could say that they were created separately, and if I gave examples of closely related species which interbred successfully, then he could say they were merely 'varieties'. The halfway stages, some of which have wholly sterile offspring, but some of which can reproduce if the semi-sterile mixed-species offspring mates with a pure-blooded animal from either of the parent species; these are evidence of evolution in progress.

And I have watched the film, which I had not seen before. It is an unashamedly dishonest piece of the most appalling propaganda which can only do the most severe damage to any hope Intelligent Design has of being taken seriously.
It begins with a claim that Richard Sternberg had been sacked from being editor (unpaid) of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a journal almost exclusively dealing with descriptions of newly described species, because he had published a paper by Stephen Meyer, dealing with Intelligent Design. This is a deliberate lie. He had resigned from his post a year before the paper was published. What’s more, he continued in his paid job as a biologist with the National Centre for Biotechnology Information for another three years.
Next, we have the case of Caroline Crocker. In the words of the film: “After Dr Caroline Crocker simply mentioned Intelligent Design in her cell biology class at George Mason University, her promising academic career came to an abrupt end.” This too is a deliberate lie. She lectured on intelligent design, rather simply mentioning it, and although she was not rehired after her temporary appointment ended, she found another appointment elsewhere.
Having researched these two people on the internet, I discovered an entire website devoted to the misinformation perpetrated by the film, so I won't go on. It is called Expelled Exposed, at http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com. And then, gosh dang, I found another website challenging Expelled Exposed, called Expelled Exposed Exposed, at http://www.ncseexposed.org. However, at least as far as the first two sections investigated above, it does not contradict what I have written.

[Katabole]

Is your main idea here that evoltuion is impossible, or that life had to be started by a god, and then could evolve from there?

No.The point I was trying to get across is that it is not mathematically impossible for life to occur randomly without a Creator or creative force. It is however, mathematically improbable for life to occur randomly without a Creator or creative force.

It is the same if you believe that there is life on other planets. It would have to follow the same set of mathematical laws, including life occurring in a Solar System like our own, otherwise life would have been wiped out by even more asteroid collisions and gamma ray bursts than our Earth has already sustained because in our Solar System we have outer planets which suck in debris that otherwise would be dragged towards our Sun's gravitational well and which would put the planet Earth in target range of even more mass extinctions than the 5 or 6 that have already occurred. I believe that the chances are so mathematically improbable for life as we know it to occur, because we live in a life sustaining universe and there is far more of a chance of a universe that does not produce life to occur from a Big Bang event. A Universe that supports life is rare enough from a mathematical standpoint. A Universe that supports intelligent life is even rarer, so rare in fact, that it probably shouldn't exist. And yet, that is the reality we live in.

Rare Earth Hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

If you are interested, you should probably read Thomas Nagel's book, 'Mind and Cosmos: Why the Neo Darwinian Conception of Nature is Most Certainly False.' Nagel is a professor of Philosophy at New York University and he is an atheist like you. But he believes that the Darwinian concept of life evolving randomly is a fundamentally flawed and false concept and his book clearly and profoundly explains his position.

Audie, I like you even though I consider what you believe to be false and I really hate arguing. However, after you read Nagel's book sometime in the future, I'm up for a good debate if you are.