Ummm, what?  Having a vivid imagination has nothing to do with distinguishing fact from fiction.  You must not have kids.

I feel like you've missed the entire point.

Here we go once more:

The article's point is that kids' ability to determine the likelihood of a story being able to occur is skewed by being taught stories from the Bible which would seem far-fetched to most people. In other words, kids are unable to determine the probability of an event actually being able to occur because they believe that similar events have ocurred in the past.

The situation here is entirely different, because adults have the ability to weigh the probability, and STILL believe in it. In other words, they believe in spite of the improbability. They realize how far-fetched it sounds, and still believe in it. Kids, meanwhile, believe in it without recognizing how far-fetched it sounds. That is the difference.

Think of it like this: there are plenty of adults out there that believe in God despite not having done so as a child (and, to be fair, the inverse is true as well). IF this finding had any link towards adults, i.e. adults only believed in religion because their ability to determine the normal from the far-fetched was obscured, then we would not expect many children who are raised secular to become religious. But that isn't the case, only 46% of Americans who were unaffiliated with religion as children remain so as adults. Granted, we're discussing regions much bigger than just America here, but the point is still the same regardless; lots of people still believe in what seems far-fetched regardless of whether they were supposedly indoctrinated as kids.

My point is simply that there is no link between kids's ability to distinguish between far-fetched and realistic and adults'. Kids cannot distinguish, and so believe both. Adults can distinguish, and believe in spite of the difficulty. That's the difference, and why I believe this study is pointless towards drawing conclusions about adulthood.

It is a fact that God is more probable. The probabilty for something to be created from nothing is the same probabilty as 0 = 1. Now the probabilty of a God who can manipulate physics into what he wants is far more probable. Just look at the math.

Dna and Rna have been compared to a computer code. What computer program do you know that created itself? A computer program is created by a programmer. That is the factual reality that God is more probable. Not saying God is 100% but i am saying that God is more likely then chaos.

I don't think you can try and argue what is more probable as a fact. For one thing, your analogy doesn't even work. If the universe was created by a deity then how was that deity created? Did it create itself? Does that not create the exact same problem that you think a universe without a deity had?

Just because something can't be created from nothing that doesn't mean that something hasn't always been there. After all, that's how people explain God's existence. So why not be open for the possibility of matter always existing?

because then you have an even less likly occurance where you have Chaos from everything being pulled into order and staying maintained. It would be like if you took all the parts of a watch, shook the bag and you then came out with a working watch that was running on with the correct time.