Anyway, I recommend it.
Sorry I could not agree less with your analogy.
Mathematicians [not christians] are the single highest group percentage that reject the theory of evolution b/c the odds of random chance producing life are staggering - so small it’s not worthy of being called a theory.
Plus it is the evolution crowd which abandoned abiogenesis - so there is no foundation just this gigantic assumption of a single cell starting point. There is not only stasis in the fossil record but zero evo explanation for polystrate fossils too. I could go on and on but their is no point b/c your crowd simply ignores all their major problems or declares them off limits while slinging crap at creation.
Even information theory strikes a blow against random chance b/c you could not be having this conversations over several different communication layers w/o their being an ultimate creator at each and every level. The inter-connnectedness of life also tells the tale of the need for an intelligence far above anything man could ever accomplish.
It’s God you’ll have to answer to someday not me. The evidence against evolution is simply staggering. Pastor John MacArthur summed it up best ‘You simply love your sin more than you love your God.’
polystrate fossils...
like those trees whose roots are millions of years (according to their strata) older than their tops? :)
Anyway, I recommend it.
I get to do some math for work from time to time and if Creationists were debating that A (Creation) is better than B(evolution) using probabilities then they would argue that Prob(A happened)>Prob(B happened) but they don't, they just talk about B as if that proves A.
They argue that Prob (evolution=B ) is small so Creation =A must be true but that's just a false premise for the know nothings. They are not mutually exclusive.
No matter how small the probability is of the straw men that Creationists create for evolution, its still bigger than zero which is what Creationists off for P(A),