[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
Don't worry. I will not be refering to Dr. Dino for my arguements. Many young-earth Creationists consider him an embarassment, just as I'm sure there are evolutionists that you would also consider poor "ambassadors" for your beliefs.



There comes a point when, based on probability calculations, a mathmetician will consider the probability of an occurance to be zero. The probability of evolution is zero. I will get into that more later. And I'm sure I will have plenty more arguements that I won't have time for by the time I wake up tomorrow. We really need to find some others to help balance this debate!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

This still reflects a misunderstanding of probability and statistics, which may need to confirmed by your husband. Statistics are designed to test different things in different ways. The methods and assumptions are important issues when designing a statistical model to test anything. If someone wanted to prove something false they simply would create a statistical model to do so. For a statistical test of the probability of evolution taking place to be valid we would both have to agree on the methods and assumptions of the statistical model used. The assumptions would be important, because to begin with the proponents of 'Creation Science' believe that the genetic mutations required for evolution either do not take place or they are impossible.

You make an absolute statement that the 'probability of evolution is zero'. I don't think this statement is supported by legitamite 'Test'.

I had a T-shirt when I was a graduate student that read 'If it don't fit, use a different program or a bigger hammer.'