The bankruptcy of Creationists' probability argument

[Urban Ranger]

The Creationists keep saying, when an event has a very low probability to happen, it doesn't. This argument has been refuted by a US couple just a few days ago:

California couple wins two lotteries, beating the 1-in-24 trillion odds

(That's just the headline, the story is here)

So that's 1 in 24 trillion. Consider the facts that it's just for the US (or California, even) and these lotteries haven't been around for all that long, makes for a very strong case refuting the Creationist argument.

Some Creationists may argue that most events with very low probabilities to occur don't. If they cast it that way, however, it doesn't work against evolution, for evolutionists can always maintain that evolution is one of the exceptions, thus they are not incompatible.

USA, USA! ( One of the few times )

[Boris Godunov]

I certainly think 1 in 24 trillion is much greater odds than for life developing on at least one planet in the universe, given no divine intervention.

Erm, but how do we not know that God willed them to win it twice?

[Urban Ranger]

Um, good question.

But this is supposed to be scientific, you see.

[Capt Dizle]

Perfectly ridiculous assertion UR but points for the effort.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Um, good question.

But this is supposed to be scientific, you see.

But Creationism isn't scientific, either.

And jimmytrick, unless you can refute his points, don't bother.

[Asher]

As an agnostic, I think it's safe to say that the assertion this thread makes is as ridiculous as the assertion it tries to refute of creationists.

Ah...how fun it is to sit on the fence.

[Capt Dizle]

Boris, what damn points? Jesus, Mary, mother of God!

[Caligastia]

When it came to creation, God stacked the odds in favor of evolution.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Boris, what damn points? Jesus, Mary, mother of God!

He showed an example of something of incredible improbablity actually occuring, therefore pointing out an assertion by many Creationists that evolution is wrong because it is "against the odds" doesn't hold water. How would you refute this besides BAMing?

[Asher]

Probability never eliminates possibility, it's one of the basic laws of statistics.

[Capt Dizle]

Also, not that it is any more relevant to creation that the Ranger's Fez-like assertion:

Quote: "Angelo Gallina, a 78-year-old retired railroad machinist from Belmont, cheerfully admitted he has bought $20 worth of lottery tickets every day since the lottery started in 1985."

The chances of the Gallina's winning this particular double lottery may have been 1 in 24 trillon, but given their faithful participation its not hard for me to believe that their prayers were answered.

[Caligastia]

God doesn't hold it against the creation he evolved when they refuse to believe in him.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Asher
Probability never eliminates possibility, it's one of the basic laws of statistics.

Which doesn't seem to sink in with the Creationists who spout the nonsensical idea.

jimmytrick: Ah, but they never mentioned God or any faith in the article. For all we know, the Gallinas are atheists who do not pray. Or maybe Buddhists. Or some other non-Christian denomination, like Catholic.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I certainly think 1 in 24 trillion is much greater odds than for life developing on at least one planet in the universe, given no divine intervention.

Erm, but how do we not know that God willed them to win it twice?

Boris I will BBAM (thats boldly bald-faced assertion, man) your really silly math and thereby BAM Ranger with the following statement.

The odds of life developing on one planet in the universe, given no divine intervention is much greater than 1 in 24 trillon. Probably greater by a factor of ten.

And Boris, when you cough up the math behind your supporting BAM of Rangers BAM, I'll gladly proffer mine.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Which doesn't seem to sink in with the Creationists who spout the nonsensical idea.

jimmytrick: Ah, but they never mentioned God or any faith in the article. For all we know, the Gallinas are atheists who do not pray. Or maybe Buddhists. Or some other non-Christian denomination, like Catholic.

Boris, booby, I threw the word prayer in there as a play on the religious issue. An ironic pun, so to speak. Get it?

No, I thought not.