Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..."

I do understand that every time i buy a lottery ticket, my chances of winning are the same.

Poor ringo seems to think that the probability of winning the lottery once is equal to the probability of the same person winning the lottery 1000 times in a row. Little wonder he thinks the scientific impossibility of abiogenesis by natural means is statistically inevitable.Atheists fantasies are kinda embarrassing. More embarrassing atheist fantasies. Why should evolutionary scientists bother with mathematics when they can invent fairy tales about what happened millions of years ago and pass them off as facts?The atheistic cult of Darwinism thrives on dreaming up bedtime stories about the ancient past.

Well, I have stated many times on this forum that I have a fragile, eggshell mind. Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit has convinced me the truth of the Catholic Church ... the truth you have yet to discover.

The probability that your "one piece at a time" hypothesis is pure fantasy is very, very good.

Let's try a simpler example of probability:
If I toss a coin once, the probability of getting a head is 1/2.If I toss a coin three times, what is the probability of getting three heads?

Of course it's harder ... much harder ... bcoz you multiply the probabilities of winning each lottery.So if the probability of winning once is one in a million (10^-6), the probability of winning twice in a row is 10^-6 × 10^-6 = 10^-12.The probability of winning 1000 times in a row would be (10^-6)¹⁰⁰⁰
= 10^-6000which represents a statistical impossibility.

Let's imagine the same person won the lottery 5 times. If the question was:
What is the probability of that person winning the 1st lottery OR the 2nd lottery OR the 3rd lottery OR the 4th lottery OR the 5th lottery,
the answer would be, the probability of winning just one lottery (assuming P for winning each lottery is the same).But that is not the question. The question is, what is the the probability of winning all five lotteries in a row - ie, winning the 1st lottery AND the 2nd lottery AND the 3rd lottery AND the 4th lottery AND the 5th lottery?In that case, the answer is
P(winning one lottery) × P(winning one lottery) ×
P(winning one lottery) ×
P(winning one lottery) ×
P(winning one lottery).= P(winning one lottery)⁵

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying ... and you seem to be the only poster here to realise that I was using a ridiculous hyperbole (a probability of less than 1) to match a ridiculous proposition (natural abiogenesis). Atheist dreamers who believe in natural abiogenesis expect us to believe that the first viable life-form began as maybe a lucky amino acid that rolled around in the ocean until it bumped into another lucky amino acid and some other lucky molecules, which together just happened to form part of a cell. This lucky process continued until ... hey presto! ... they formed a very lucky living organism that started living and feeding and reproducing! Wow!I wonder how much time elapsed between each lucky stage of construction.How would a lucky fraction of a cell manage to stay intact until it bumped into the next lucky part of the jigsaw?Why would such a mindless, aimless, lifeless process produce an organism that reproduces?The hypothesis of natural
abiogenesis is so improbable, unscientific and idiotic that it beggars belief that any half-intelligent, half-sane adult would accept it.

Yes, it's a bizarre case of applying wild extrapolation to science until it morphs into science-fiction... a bit like saying,"Humans are running 100 metres faster today than they did 70 years ago. Therefore, in the very distant future, humans will be able to run 100 metres in just 1 second."

Ah yes, the magic wand of deep time - it can make scientific impossibilities possible! La La Land.I suspect abiogenesis research is driven by atheism's deep-seated psychological need to find the "silver bullet" that will prove God wasn't necessary for life to begin. But it's a fool's errand - they'll never find it.
However, that won't stop the meaningless claims of "progress" and advances in "understanding" by deluded researchers.

Actually, I had heard that atoms are very small (although I hadn't heard that they're "very, very, very" small).Is an atom as small as my brain? Oh yes, deep time can do amazing things. I mean, just look at how lots of time carved out those four faces on Mount Rushmore! Very impressive, I must say. Thank you, I appreciate that. I don't like big words and big concepts ... they scare me.

After having carefully and fairly considered your comment, I've come to the conclusion that it's unworthy of merit, for the following reason:
Your comment fails to explain why an otherwise sane and intelligent person would be so stupid and deluded as to think it's possible to know how viable life arose from inanimate matter.In contrast, I provided a quite plausible explanation for why an otherwise sane and intelligent person would be so stupid and deluded as to think it's possible to know how life arose from inanimate matter.

"jest"? Not at all. If nature alone could have produced abiogenesis, nature alone could have produced the faces on Mt. Rushmore.

A shameful waste of taxpayers hard-earned money, chasing fairies at the bottom of the garden.Abiogenesis research is as futile and useless as research into Universal Common Descent.

Judging by your comments, I think you should give serious thought to writing science-fiction for a living ... you're a deadset natural!