I think one of the problems that most people have with probability theory is that in the public mind it is equivalent to the "law of averages". The idea that every thing will average out in the end.

Las Vegas was built on this misconception.

First there is no "Law of Averages".

Probability very simply says that if something is possible that it will happen if given sufficient opportunity. Think about the infinite monkey theorem - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infi...ey_theorem

>An explanation of molecules to man requires both of these theories in sequence. <

This is also a misconception - or perhaps misstatement on the part of creationists.

To use the automobile as an example one can draw a straight line from the Conestoga Wagon to the Ford Mustang but this would be a very narrow view of available facts.

Just as there were many different lines of transportation - most of them unknown to us today - that branched off early horse drawn wagons there many branches from many points in the history of evolution.

It is the totality of the evidence that must be weighed.

Each new piece of evidence must be given equal scrutiny with all the evidence that came before it.

We must also be ready to keep or discard old and new evidence and even whole theories as new and better evidence presents itself.

This is the great fault of creationism - they have decided what the truth is and must then fit the facts to it.

"Evolution presupposes a simple code sequence, capable of self replication and possible mutation. From this basic starting point, there are theories describing different replication "errors," an error being anything other than a perfect copy. Errors may take many forms: "

Interestingly, you start with "evolution presupposes". Yet no independent "simple code" exists as far as we know anywhere in the universe! Why do you suppose that evolutionists wish to stack the deck in their favor right from the start? I can think of some reasons, can you?

You go on to list some types of mutations which can occur, some which may (or may not) add information and some which actually lose information. Then you state that known examples of these mutations exist, but fail to cite any information gaining mutation series in the germ cells of any organism which has been observed anywhere in any laboratory in the world. Major omission don't you think?

"Highly probable examples may be found as evidence of these mechanisms functioning in the past."

What does it mean to say that "higly probable examples may be found"? Isn't the issue whether or not they have been found? Of course, if a complete transformation of one cell into the entire biosphere did occur, it is highly probable that we would find millions of examples, but this is begging the question. The issue is, we have not found any..... (Of course, one must qualify this as evolution believers are adept at advancing so-called evidences for their theory, give them an international spotlight, then ignore them once real science demonstrates they are not really valid at all!)

Finding a copy of shakespeare in another book may demonstrate that it has gotten their from another source (binding error at the factory perhaps), but NO NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE WORLD, BECAUSE SHAKESPEARE ALREADY EXISTS! Are you starting to get the point??? Duplications do not add information. And the contention that they provide the raw material for future information is not evidence, it is conjecture!

An evolutionist pressupposes that similarities in organisms is due to homology, but this is not necessarily so. Similarities can also be due to common design. I can find many similarities in the numerous bridges I have driven over, but they did not evolve from one another. In like manner, the creationist would expect similarities between organisms which God has created, this is no surprise. So this "evidence" is not useful in this debate, because it can be fit into either model of origins.

Evolutionists who don't understand information science often claim that "time" is the savior. "Given enough time, helium turns into people" or so we are told! But saying so doesn't make this true. Sir Fred Hoyle for example, after looking at the incredible challenge of life evolving on the primordial earth, give up atheism and declared with his colleage, "There must be a God!"

There is no evidence that life started as a "particle". All known "particles" exist as obligate parisites. None live independently, none! So it is reasonable for creationists to insist that evolution believers must prove that it is possible for a living cell to "spontaneously generate". Of course, there is not science which proves that such a thing is possible and the more we learn about living things the more complex we find that they are. There is no such thing as a "simple cell". But probability is not the only issue here. As Grim mentions we have habitability issues as well. It appears that not all places in the universe are equally hospitable to life. We live here on earth in a "goldilocks zone", an ideal place for life. Yet even if the universe were filled with "earths", there is no reason to believe that life could have evolved even once!

Let's keep things simple. Let's look at an example of the probability problem evolution believers face.

"The theory of evolution
Further tests exist to measure how efficient chance is at producing design. The following is fascinating. The question is: What is the expected probability for chance to spell the phrase—‘the theory of evolution’? This phrase by chance would involve the random selection and sequencing of letters and spaces in the correct order. Each letter from the alphabet plus one space (totaling 27 possible selections) has one chance in 27 of being selected. There are 20 letters plus 3 spaces in the phrase—‘the theory of evolution’. Therefore ‘chance’ will, on the average, spell the given phrase correctly only once in (27)23 outcomes!!

This computes to only one success in a mind boggling 8.3 hundred quadrillion, quadrillion attempts (8.3x1032) (gasp!). Suppose ‘chance’ uses a machine which removes, records and replaces all the letters randomly at the fantastic speed of one billion per microsecond (one quadrillion per second)! On average the phrase would happen once in 25 billion years by this random method. If, as evolutionists would have us believe, the earth has been in existence for approximately 5 billion years, then ‘chance’ could take five times this time to spell out its own success, even at this phenomenal rate of experimentation. And this phrase is infinitely simpler than the smallest life form, and children of average intelligence could perform this same spelling task within a minute or so."

Now if you were to apply probability equations to the probability of life spontaneously generating on the primitive earth, you would quickly see that the unlikelihood is insurmountable. It would not happen in 4.5 billion years or 20 billion years. It would not happen at all. Hoyle was right, here must be a God!


"An explanation of molecules to man requires both of these theories in sequence. "

correct, no abiogenesis, no evolution. So evolution is not possible, on any level. It could not have started, no evidence suggests that life progressed in this manner so I rest my case, the only other option is Biblical Creation.