[VadeRetro]

For 2-3 billion years of random molecule interaction to firmly arrive at humanity is a statistic impossibility.

It isn't random, as most people use "random." Some creationists make a point of tripping themselves by saying that anything not under active guidance is random. That would make the falling of a cannonball "random," a usage most people would not accept. It is after all falling and cannot go any way but down.

Every creationist argument from improbability I've ever seen has been based upon a naive model. Mostly, things have to jump together all at once from a whole lot of very simple components.

Then the creationist will rail about evolution, but he didn't model evolution. He modeled things poofing together from atoms, dirt, or whatever in one afternoon, which sounds like the version of events he DOES support.

[Thoro]

It isn't random, as most people use "random." Some creationists make a point of tripping themselves by saying that anything not under active guidance is random. That would make the falling of a cannonball "random," a usage most people would not accept. It is after all falling and cannot go any way but down.

Agreed. Perhaps "random" wasn't the proper word. "Seemingly random" might have been a better fit. My point was about the immenseness of the equation of precise interactions required.