quote:
Then from the mathematicians' perspective, the theory of evolution isn't science.
You have an odd idea of what mathematicians consider science.
quote:
At least I know that quantum creation is ridiculously improbable. The fact that evolutionists are unable to estimate the probability for evolution doesn't make their view more scientific.
And the fact that physicists can't estimate the probability of every particle in our solar system ending up where it did doesn't make physics any less scientific.
quote:
The first mathematical model I thought of assumed Poisson processes and a fantastically small probability p that some inanimate material on this planet could assemble itself into a great variety of living things in 3 days. For p being fantastically small I concluded that the probability for evolution was indeed 4x10^11 times greater. The problem for evolutionists is that 4x10^11 times an infinitesimal is still infinitesimal.
The problem for you is that the real probability would be finitely small, so the probability would still be 11 orders of magnitude higher. And since your estimate assumes Quantum Creationism, simply given a longer time scale all you are saying is that Old Earth Quantum Creationism is hopelessly bad at accounting for the diversity of life - and Young Earth Quantum Creationism is so improbable that even an improvement of 11 orders of magnitude doesn't help it.
And YECQ needs a whole lot more virtual impossibilities to account for the evidence, so it's even worse than that.
So thanks for proving my point. Your Quantum Creationism is useless even by the low, low standard of creationist apologetics. YECs would have to be completely nuts to waste their time on it.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.