badp
New member
Evolutionists always resort to a probability argument. They say that even though evolution is highly improbable, it's still possible. (By "evolution" I mean supposed common descent of single-celled organisms to present day)
They say, "Given enough time, evolution will happen." I used to attack this on the grounds that the Earth simply hasn't been around long enough for evolution to happen. But an evolutionist could say, "Although it's highly improbable for evolution to happen in 6000 years, it's still possible."
Evolution even happening is improbable. But so is evolution happening in a few thousand years. If the academic elite who push evolution decided tomorrow that evolution actually happened in 6,000 years, would we use probability to refute that? They would just say, "It's still possible." It seems that attacking evolution on probability grounds is a losing argument.
I get the implications of throwing out probability. To be consistent you'd have to throw out forensic analysis, copyright laws, lotteries, gambling, medicine, construction, meteorology, etc. But most evolutionists don't even think about the implications of their belief, let alone care.
What I'm looking for is a non-probability-based argument against evolution's possibility. Obviously, it didn't actually happen, and it's not happening. The evidence is overwhelmingly against common descent. But is it actually impossible? And how do you prove it's impossible?
They say, "Given enough time, evolution will happen." I used to attack this on the grounds that the Earth simply hasn't been around long enough for evolution to happen. But an evolutionist could say, "Although it's highly improbable for evolution to happen in 6000 years, it's still possible."
Evolution even happening is improbable. But so is evolution happening in a few thousand years. If the academic elite who push evolution decided tomorrow that evolution actually happened in 6,000 years, would we use probability to refute that? They would just say, "It's still possible." It seems that attacking evolution on probability grounds is a losing argument.
I get the implications of throwing out probability. To be consistent you'd have to throw out forensic analysis, copyright laws, lotteries, gambling, medicine, construction, meteorology, etc. But most evolutionists don't even think about the implications of their belief, let alone care.
What I'm looking for is a non-probability-based argument against evolution's possibility. Obviously, it didn't actually happen, and it's not happening. The evidence is overwhelmingly against common descent. But is it actually impossible? And how do you prove it's impossible?
