Why the Probability Argument Fails
I grow weary of creationists and apologists claiming that the existence of life is too improbable to have occurred by natural means. They seem to think that quote-mining statistics uttered by those who may or may not support these dishonest charlatans' cause makes them sound intelligent. They also use this as their primary basis for the claim that those who accept naturalism have "faith." Such equivocation is unacceptable, and in this video I lay out the reason for which statistics are not used to comment on the past: IT'S NOT IMPRESSIVE. If a past event happened, then the probability that it happened is 100%!!!! Apologists and creationists, stop using mathematics to defend your arguments. Or, better yet, LEARN math, biology, physics, and any other area of your choosing from an objective source. An accredited university is a good place to start. Then, when you're educated, you will inevitably become irreligious because that is the inexorable consequence of obtaining knowledge: losing dogma.
Music by Mozart (Symphony 40 in G minor)
Information about the earth from the National Geological Survey
Results of the Nose Study are available upon request
And finally, an alternate method of phrasing my argument, put forth by FishHeadSalad:
"If a meteor the size of a grain of sand hit a grain of sand on a beach, what are the odds of 'that' meteor (now meteorite) hitting that specific grain of sand? Before it happens the odds are astronomical. After the event, it is 100%."