Jack: “I am here, therefore my mere existence proves the model.” I’m not arguing this. This argument is only valid with an assumption of no transcendent First Cause. I am only saying that any event or result in history is the result of infinitesimally small odds if you are only looking at probability.

The math is not arguable – there is no model for evolution that Darwinists can use to explain the fact that there has not been enough time since the beginning of the universe for the proper sequence of chemical accidents to occur in order to bring about human life.

This statement is only valid if we know all the variables, which we don’t, how old the universe really is, which we don’t, and if we know how long it takes for each change to take place, which we don’t. 15 billion years (or whatever the current estimate is), is reducable to an infinite number of smaller time periods.

God knows I’m not arguing for evolution. I think it is based on dubious assumptions and much wishful thinking. I’m just saying that the probability argument is not the best refutation. Creationists are notoriously guilty of bad science and we have to be wary of it, ie: the moon dust theory.

I can’t go too much farther with this, since I’m not an expert in these matters. I did speak with a mathematician (Christian) for the probability stuff.