Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

People try to used the rhetorical device called, "playing it down", in several ways when confronted with the improbability-factor.You are right that you will get a huge number no matter what the number is. But evolutionists are likely to come back with the classical canard on that by showing examples of unlikely things that occur every day.However they don't show examples of unlikely things that have and can happen, that in any way compare to the size of the improbability-figure you logically MUST get from these scenarios if you entertain the absurd notion that the plain scientific fact of design is incidental.Yes, someone in every twenty people may turn out to have my birthday, but what evolutionists miss is that this is underwhelming because the numbers and commonality make it actually a probable scenario.Probability has to be understood in terms of WHICH probability-figure to focus upon.What evolutionists miss is that with design it isn't a matter of supreme improbability and if we look at statistical probability, science-fact give you a figure that 1 in 1 things that had all of the usual features of intelligent design such as specified complexity and code, all turned out to have an intelligent designer.The only reason to OPPOSE the conclusion of an intelligent designer when weighed against the absurd credulity abiogenesised evolution requires, is a BIAS against that designer turning out to be God.That motive is not scientific because they argue against design VOCIFEROUSLY. But a person with a scientific attitude merely says, "okay, if it's design and that is more reasonable then so be it."That is why I am one person that will NOT BE IMPRESSED with the evolutionists here ASSOCIATING themselves with science and us with religion, because the designs in life are not a religious creed, they are proven to be more intelligent than ours.

I have at all times at Evc when partaking often and hardly at all have went to, "all topics" to see what is on the first page. At the bottom of that page the most recent posts are 2023.If I haven't had my say in that topic I may go to the first post. If the member is no longer active the issues will be because they are always debated so I don't see this as a major thing.But it is funny that NOW you grow a brain over a timing-issue considering your confusion when I was last here about a present-tense statement I made about trying to be an interlocutor.You seemed to think that my participation from long ago in an EvC forum far, far away was VERY RELEVANT when you wanted to conduct some bizarre personal study of my behaviour based on that PRESENT-TENSE comments about being an interlocutor.Not exactly consistent behaviour or clear thinking is it?

But this is why I don't stay long here any more, it all becomes a personal evaluation of every move the creationist makes. It's tedious and transparent. Are you a dullard or a dotard is what I find myself asking whomever the player is that seeks to play with mikey Kirk.

OOPS, he stuck around! We don't mind firing spells at Dumbledore if he is on his way out of the room but what do we do if he stays?
I'll make it easy.....here is my back Tangle....have at it. (unfortunately for you, I won't be reading your troll bait. Nothing new here and this forum, just the same old propagandists of atheistic evolution churning out the inconsequential canards that cannot refute the wisdom we find in God's nature.)