[[I would go back to pointing out my baseballs on the fence analogy and saying that people should accept that for now its a subjective and thus differing issue.]]
Why? We’re not talking abotu a minor statistical impossibility, we’re talking a major statistical impossibility- and not just once, twice, trice, or several times, but trillions of times- This isn’t somethign that we can’t reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt here- and besides, Mutations do not add new non species specific info- it can only alter info already present- There are many sound reasons to reject the idea that nature did anythign even remotely akin to macroeovlution. We’re not talkign about nature p ossibly beign able to do something- we’re beign asked to bleeive it violated key scientific principles- and we’re not asked ot bleeive it did so just once, after which ‘the ball got rolling, and everythign sprang forth fro mthat one impossible incident’ We’re beign unreasonably asked to believe that nature vioalted scientific principles trilliosn of times= this isn’t minor- and it certainly stretches the reasonability of he case far too far I’m afraid
[[understand that you can’t statistically disprove something that is at least theoretically a matter of chance.]]
Your ball o nthe fence has a much better chance of happenign than nature does of vioalting key scientific principles I’m afraid- you seem to be implying htough that if somethign has ‘a chance’ then it can’t be ruled out (which doesn’t realyl apply to macroevolution, as it’s impossible) but there are upper probability limits- the likes of which, if breached, make somethign impossible- not probable, not likely, not even remotely likely, but impossible- Won’t ever happen- Macroevolutionists though are fond of stating that ‘creationsits and ID folk ‘don’t understand how probability works’ or ‘how Macroevolution works, (though they have yet to show any real life exemptions or evidences)- but again- we’re not talkign about it happening just once, or a few times, we’re talkign abotu trillions of times it would have had to occure- and yet we have absolutely zero evidence for it happening even one time- the best they can do is point to things liek sicklecell anameamia and claim it’s ‘new ifnromation’ because it ‘gives a certain measure of protection against malaria’ - nothign coudl be further fro mthe truth- but whatever-
On and on it goes
I don't think you are getting my baseball analogy. I think it reasonable to rule out statistical improbabilities when they become dizzyingly improbable. However, that is a subjective decision. It can not be objectively ruled impossible that I will win the Florida Lottery twice a week for the next 52 weeks. However, if I do, I guarantee that no one will believe that it was just a fluke.