Replies

Suppose I were to determine the number of coin flips it would take to make the odds of them all coming up heads to be 1:10^50. Then suppose I flipped a coin that many times, recording the results in order.

Would you agree that the odds of that sequence being repeated would also be 1:10^50? If so, does that mean the previous sequence of flips never happened, since it was so unlikely?

Your flaw is that you are trying to use the statistical probability of a future event to 'predict' the odds of a past event. The only odds relevant to a past event are did it happen (which means the odds that it did are 1:1) or not (odds of 0:1). If you cannot determine if it did or not, then Schrödinger's cat tells us that both are equally viable.

Throwing astronomical odds at something will never change the past.

Your flaw is that you are trying to use the statistical probability of a future event to 'predict' the odds of a past event.

Math was just as reliable then as it is now. The problem with neodarwinism is that it says NOTHING about origins at all. It only speaks of CHANGE to existing organisms and cannot explain origins at all except to take wild guesses or spew another "just so" story.

Say we have a one celled bacteria (laying aside problem of origins for a moment), I have yet to have an evolutionist explain to me precisely by what mechanism that information is added to the genome in order to "evolve" into the different phyla. Information MUST be a added. Where does it come from? How is it added?