> Spontaneous generation, abiogenesis and evolution are less probable
>than 2.3x10^-75, which is the probability of a perpetual motion machine
>or that gold is an alloy.
> Scientists base belief on probability of 0.95 or higher. The
>evolutionist pretends to believe the impossible, which out of politesse
>may be called miracles.
> Evolutionists pretend that adaptation, an attribute of all flora and
>fauna, is evolution. A bacterium adapts to its environment, a leaf turns
>toward the sun, an arctic hare changes its fur from gray in summer to
>snow white in winter, the color of moth wings and the beaks of finches
>are adaptations misrepresented as evolution.
> The probability of abiogenesis, spontaneous generation and "evolution"
>is less than 2.3x10^-75 because from the beginning of recorded history
>through the present moment it has never been observed and is therefore
>something other than science.
> Without a scintilla of evidence, the duress on the evolutionist is
>particularly burdensome and may be some excuse for their eristics.
I think your problem here is that you are examining the probabilities
fallaciously. If you have a jar full of 100 marbles, and you take them out
randomly one at a time, what is the probability that you would take them
out exactly in the same sequence again? *Infinitesimal*. Far below 0.95%,
to be sure!
Now, by your reasoning, this means that it was in fact *practically
impossible* to have taken out the marbles in that sequence. But that
clearly isn't true. Moreover, no matter which sequence you happened to
choose, it would have the same miniscule probability as any other. The
question I put to you is: is it a "miracle" that you took out the marbles
in exactly the sequence that you did? Is it scientifically or logically
implausible? Obviously not.
This is the fundamental problem with creationistic probability
calculations. They are based on the mistaken presumption that, if the
exact repetition of something is monumentally improbable, then the original
event is essentially impossible.
(By the way, I'm sure others have brought up this point already. Still, it
seemed to be worth repeating.)
As for adaptation: you are incorrect that your examples are thought of as
evolution, unless you count Lamarckianism as evolution. Evolution in the
applicable sense means changes *over generations*, not the adaptations
living creatures make in response to their environment. An arctic hare
changing colour to suit the season is adaptation; peppered moths slowly
becoming predominately black-coloured over generations is evolution.
Out of curiosity, exactly what is your operating definition of "evolution"?
Maybe some basic misunderstanding of the theory is at fault here.
Regards,
Mike Hardie
<hardie@globalserve.net>
http://www.globalserve.net/~hardie/dv/