I would like to ask you how you can go against these stagering numbers im about to tell you...
the probibility of us coming here by accident is 10 to the 40,000 power.(one with 40,000 zeros behine it) the number of atoms in the universe is 10 to the power of 65. anything over 10 to the power of 50 is accounted impossible in science and mathematics.
i would like to see someone try to debate against me
As AdminCoryops noted "checking" is what one does with mathematics. If you arrive at an answer then on one accepts it until the input assumptions and detailed calculations are examined to be sure all is done correctly.
Since you have the answer you must already have those assumptions and calculations so you can easily fill out the OP with them. If you don't have them then you have nothing to discuss so the OP is useless.
(Note that the same will be needed for much of your other proposed topic(s).)
Sorry to have another Admin weighing in but probability arguments are something of an interest of mine.
Yes, you are going to have to provide your calculations. And you are also going to have to specify exactly what you are calculating ht probability of - clearly and precisely. There are two very good reasons for this.
Firstly it is needed to check that the calculations are not only mathematically correct - but that they are the right calculations.
Secondly it allows us to determine if your probability is actually interesting. It is easy to find sequences of events with low probabilities. It would be surprising if it were not true ! Your "rule" does not apply to long series of events at all. If it did, the big lotteries would be impossible ! (Assume that each draw has the high probability of 10^-6. A sequence of 10 draws would then have a probability of 10^-60. But the big lotteries go on and on despite that "impossibility").
So this is the point. Nobody is going to argue on the basis that your numbers are right. What they are going to try to show is that your numbers are wrong or of no real significance. And to argue that we are going to have to see how you got those numbers and what they really mean. That is absolutely essential to any worthwhile discussion of this topic.
Tymygy, what no one has mentioned yet is that you likely won't find the mathematical derivation for your probability figure, nor an accurate description of what it applies to. If you want to tell us which of the many Creationist websites you got your figures from, we could promote this thread with an eye toward discussing the deficiencies in their argument.
I know it must seem unfair that your premise is being ruled invalid before it has even been discussed. This argument has been discussed here many times, but there are always new members and the mix of members in active participation is constantly changing, so we're more than willing to discuss the same topic many times. But the purpose of reviewing thread proposals before promotion is to make sure the author understands the position he's advocating to make sure he's capable of defending it. Since it is already well known that this probability argument is not founded upon any real world data, it really isn't capable of being defended, so all that's left to discuss is the poorly conceived nature of the argument itself.
So if you tell us where you got the argument from we could discuss it in its original form.