reply to post by rhinoceros
This one deals with one of the evolutionists' more common rebuttals to probability presentations from ID's or Creationists.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Here’s That Monumental Evolution Blunder About Probability Again
How Religion Drives Science and Why it Matters
= = = =
This one discussed one of the rebuttals to Hoyle's probability argument:
It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet.
People do say that if you allow enough time, anything can happen. However, at best we have about 4.6 billion years to work with. If Sir Fred Hoyle's
calculated probability was for a cell to form in say the next second then the probability of a cell forming in 4.6 billion years is still about 10 to
the power of 39982 to 1. If it was for a microsecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39976 to 1. If it was for a picosecond, the
probability would be 10 to the power of 39970 to 1.
There are approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in this universe.
It is also claimed that life came from another planet. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick recognised the problem of the extremely low probability that
life could come from non-life on earth. He concluded that the earth was not old enough, and postulated that life may have come from another planet.
Hence in order for us then to have a 1000 to 1 chance of life forming by itself, (and lets assume that an asteroid will definitely take the life to
earth) there would need to be roughly 10 to the power of 38970 planets out there (fairly close to us) capable of supporting life.
= = =
I think this is a better article talking about some of the 'finer points'
about such probabilities and evolutionists' flawed attempts to debunk valid probability calculations, hypotheses.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Re: Improbability of Abiogenesis Calculations (A Response to Ian Musgrave)
= = = =
I think this stalwart does an above average job on the topic. Part 1:
The Evolution of Life, Probability Considerations and Common Sense-Part 1
. . .
shows that given all the time evolutionists claim is necessary, the probability that a simple living organism could be produced by mutations “is so
small as to constitute a scientific impossibility”— “the chance that it could have happened anywhere in the universe...is less than 1 [chance]
in 102,999,942.” A figure like this is termed exponential notation, and is the figure one with almost three million zeros after it. Figures like
this are terminal to evolution. (We will discuss exponential notation shortly.)
In another article, Dr. Rodabaugh takes the argument to absurd levels to show that “It is impossible that evolution occurred.” Even giving
evolution every conceivable chance and even “assuming that evolution is 99.9999% certain, then ‘evolution [still] has only a 1 in 10132 chance of
being valid.... Therefore, even with the beginning assumption that evolution is a virtual certainty, a conditional probability analysis of the fossil
record [alone] results in the conclusion that evolution is a demonstrable absurdity.’” 
According to the French expert on probability, Emile Borél, his “single law of chance” (1 chance in 1050) beyond which things never occur,
“carries with it a certainty of another nature than mathematical certainty... it is comparable even to the certainty with which we attribute to the
existence of the external world.”  Here we see that one chance in 10132 is no chance.
Using probability and other calculations, James F. Coppedge, author of Evolution: Possible or Impossible?, concludes concerning the origin of
chirality, or “left-handed” amino acids that, “No natural explanation is in sight which can adequately explain the mystery that proteins use
only left-handed components. There is little hope that it will be solved in this way in the future. Even if such a result occurred by chance, life
would still not exist. The proteins would be helpless and nonliving without the entire complicated DNA-RNA system to make copies for the future.”
 Indeed, “The odds against the necessary group of proteins being all left-handed ‘is beyond all comprehension. ’” 
= = = =
Anyway . . . enough.
I don't expect folks who are dyed-in-the-wool acolytes, priests and bishops of the Religion of Scientism to learn anything from the above links.
Their minds were made up a long time ago.
However, they are there for the fair-minded.
I don't plan on getting into the details of such discussions . . . they are far too tedious to be fun and they bore me a lot.