Replies

[[So how many times can I flip a coin coming up heads before it becomes absolutely, completely, stupendously impossible for it to come up heads again?]]

Sigh- again, this example misses thep oint- you are equating somehtign already intelligently complete- has two outcomes that could go either way- Macroevolution is a biological impossibility, chemical, and natural- and, even if it didn’t violate these 3 scientific principles, and even if we assume it could have happened, then you’ve got the problem of macroevolution breaching the upper probability limits by a serious amount- and htis is just for one- count-em just one breach happening- multiply that breach- the breach needing to happen trillions of itmes, and we begin to see the magnitude of the impossibility

[[The entire point of my post appears to be lost on you. i.e. there is a point where everyone will agree that an improbability is a functional if not real impossibility,]]

Finally- you admit a probaiblity becoems an impossibility- not ogign ot happen-

[[What one can then infer from my point is that it is therefore the improbability that should be shown, vice arguing the impossibility.]]

Again, speaking about macroeovlution- it is not reasonable to even discuss the ‘improbable, because it’s not an ‘improbability’, it’s an impossibility- plain and simle- it’s an impossibility on several levels- it’s mathematically impossible, EVEN IF we assume macroevolution somehow violated several key scientific principles- then, the icing on the cake- the facts that make it wholly impossible- absolutely impossible, is the fact that it does violate basic scientific chemical, biological and natural laws-..

Your ball scenario has a probability that lies below the threshold of impossibility- Hitting htel ottery does as well- they are possible- macroevolution is not

[[People who believe that matter has always existed or that it suddenly came from nothing without God’s hand are unlikely be impressed with your definition of impossible.]]

Of course not- because whether htey admit it or not- they beleive Naturwe is some thinking, intelligent designer capable of violating scientific principles- al lthey need to ‘support’ their beleif is ‘long ages’ and they don’t understand the magnitutude of the impossibility facing macroevolution- They are welcoem to their beleif, but I take exeption to those same folks then coming out and stating that Creationists are ‘psuedoscientists’ when they themselves put hteir faith in the impossible

[[However, if one can statistically show that an occruence is extremely unlikely to occur on even one planet during the entire life of the known universe, then that to me seems more compelling than arguing that 1/x = impossible.]]

Two points- I’ve not been arguing that its’ ‘extemely unlikely’, it’s IMPOSSIBLE- you simply can’t explain this away, and if people can’t or won’t grasp this- then nothign you or I state will convince them- The articles I posted SHOULD be enough to show just how impossible macroevolution is EVEN IF we are unduly generous and allow Macroevolution the miracle of violating scientific laws- The article I pointed out shows that even if we have billions of universes, billions of planets that could support life, have so many monkeys, typwriterts, paper that they fil levery square inch of these billions of planets, even if we allow them billions of years- they still are NOT goign to able to type even one sentance of shakespear as pointed out i nthe explanation I linked to- This explanation is overly generous though, because in order for it to be even slightly representative of macroevolution- the monkeys would have to al lwait around while nature ‘evolved both typewriters and paper’, and hten they could get busy banging away o nthe keys in order to try to produce even one line of shakespear- to even begin to represent the problem facign macroeovlution.

This hwole “But...but....but.... there ‘is a chance’ argument is a rediculous argument, and an even more rediculous argument is ‘Creationists don’t understand how macroevolution works’ and ‘Macroevolution doesn’t work the way mathematics does- therefore, there’s a better chance it ‘could have’ happened’- These arguments ‘for macroevolution’ are disingenious, and in some cases- blatant deception - Macroevolution is impossible- on several levels- Again- even being generous, and ignoring the scientific impossibilites facing it- assuming macroeovlution somehow beat out htose several impossibilities trillions of times- then we’re faced with the mathematical impossibilities which are so astroomical that there is absolutely NO WAY it is EVER goign to happen- period- Zero chance