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.
[[I don’t think you are getting my baseball analogy. I think it reasonable to rule out statistical improbabilities when they become dizzyingly improbable.]]
Again, your ball was an improbability, macroevolution is an impossibility on several levels- not just one- in order for your ball to be representative of an impossible macroevolutionry scenario- you would have to have hit a rock, have it change into a ball midflight, hit a flower, which turned into a fence while the ball was bounced in the air- not goign to happen- can’t- rocks don’t become baseballs no more than chemicals become biological life with compelx metianformation- Chemicals can not produce metainformaiton no more so than a rock can turn into baseball- and no matter how long it took that rock that was hit, to reach the fenceline- even if it took several billions years, it’s not goign to become a baseball, with all the properties of regular baseballs- it can’t- it’s an impossibility every bit as much as chemicals turnign into biological life-
improbabilities are a much different animal than impossibilities are
[[However, if I do, I guarantee that no one will believe that it was just a fluke.]]
The lottery odds are much much smaller than odds against macroeovlution- I don’t htink people appeciate or can even comprehend just how astronomical the odds agaisnt macroevolution really are- you at least have a chance to hit the lottery 2 tiems a wekk for 52 weeks- with macroevolution, it’s impossible