If complexity requires design, where did the Deity come from?

No, which is why you were obliged to misunderstand some of it and ignore the rest all by yourself, instead of having a creationist website do it for you.

That isn't a scientific website, it's a creationist lie-fest. Let's look at what they have to say, shall we? --- It follows that since any particular ordering of 52 playing cards is 1 in 8*10^62, it will NEVER HAPPEN that shuffling a pack of cards will produce any given order.And yet somehow every single time I shuffle a pack of cards they end up in one of these 8*10^62 orders.You might conclude from this that this "Borel" chap was a halfwit with no understanding of probability theory. But you would be wrong. The real explanation, of course, is that creationists are lying about what Borel's law is. As we know that they have lied about Borel, it would not be beyond them to lie about Sagan and Morowitz (who?)I should like therefore to see these supposed calculations in the words of Sagan and Morowitz rather than in the words of a liar and a fraud. Especially as the statements attributed to them (like the imaginary "law" attributed to Borel in place of his real one) display the sort of mathematical and scientific illiteracy that one associates more with creationists than with men of science.

That's a nice line in pseudoscience you've got there.I don't suppose you could show your working? Oh, right, you haven't done any.Well, how about measurements of the increase in entropy. The sun was shining today, how much did the entropy of the biosphere increase?No?No, you've just got a pointless jumble of words fabricated out of your ignorance of thermodynamics, in which the sun may be the ultimate source of energy for all life on Earth (except arguably the communities living round "black smokers") but it gives people sunburn. Sure, they'd be dead without it, but it's still bad, and "bad" means "causing an increase in the entropy of the Earth's biosphere", for reasons that are obvious to any idiot ... but, strangely, not to people who have studied thermodynamics.Your pseudonobel pseudoprize for pseudophysics is in the post. And when, thanks to increasing entropy, the sun goes out, the biosphere will indeed collapse.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No I didn't. Stop making stuff up. I had no objection to the information provided, but rather to the way that you misunderstood a tiny bit of it and then completely ignored the rest. I had no objection to the information provided, but rather to the way that you misunderstood a tiny bit of it and then completely ignored the rest. I do tend to prefer truth to bullshit, yes. But tastes differ.---P.S: It occurs to me that the post to which I am replying would be slightly less stupid if it was intended as a reply to my post 78 rather than my post 76. But there's not much in it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Not only did I read up on the law, I linked you to it so that you could see that it said no such thing. And what is "predetermined" about life? Are you committing the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy?Moreover, your statement of this made-up "law" said nothing about being "predetermined". That's not a quotation from Borel. That's a quotation from Dembski's Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology in which he says what he thinks Borel means. Having read the mess that Dembski has made out of the statements of other scientists (for example, his nonsense about the No Free Lunch Theorem) I am not inclined to take his word about what anyone else means by anything.Got any quotes from Borel?(And if Borel had written that, which he didn't 'cos he isn't Dembski, it still wouldn't be "Borel's Law", because "Borel's Law" refers to something else.) And you base this on ... a non-quote from Borel, a non-quote from Morowitz, and a non-quote from Sagan.Really, if everyone is on your side you'd think you could quote some of them saying so.---The relevance of all this to any actual biological question remains somewhat unclear.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But it doesn't. It just doesn't. Borel's Law is just the Law Of Large Numbers as it applies to the statistics of experiments.And I believe that I have already explained why things at long odds are not actually "mathematically impossible".You see that "Dr" thing in my name, just before it says "Adequate"?Well, the subject in which I have a PhD is in fact mathematics. Do not misuse the phrase "mathematically impossible" in my presence unless you want me to hunt you down and slap you about the face with a wet fish.---Your irrelevant quotations which are not relevant to this question are in fact irrelevant because of them not being relevant to this question. When I asked: "Got any quotes?" I didn't mean any quotes relating to anything you might want to get off your chest, I meant any relevant quotes.Indeed, looking at my post, I find that what I actually wrote was: "Got any quotes from Borel?". (Emphasis added.)If you wish to be shamefully and ludicrously wrong about something that is not on topic in this thread, then start another thread.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Pointing out that Borel's Law does not say what creationist liars say it says does not require me to do any math so much as have a passing familiarity with it. No, I am not.You can tell that I'm not saying it by the way that I'm not saying it.What I am saying is that stupid creationist liars tell stupid creationist lies.You should not interpret this as advice on your retirement fund. I have in fact read my post #87, the one to which you were replying. Indeed, by a freakish coincidence, I wrote it. And it contains the words: "Got any quotes from Borel?" And it does not contain the words "Has anyone ever said anything stupid about anything?"Again, I would urge you that if you want to be wrong about something else entirely you should start a new thread. If you don't, that's good too. I am not urging you to be wrong about something else, I am merely pointing out that if that is what you wish to do, there is an established mechanism for doing it.