I was impressed by the discussion of probability (though recent posts here
and elsewhere have convinced of the weakness of much of these arguments),
While I do not know the specifics of either what impressed you about
probability or what you view as weakness to such arguments, I would remind
you and several others on the reflector that science is about probability
and little else, and anyone who disparages the proper use of probability
does not understand the workings of science. For reasons that are obvious
to anyone actively engaged in science, the nature of evidence and
experimentation requires that probability assessments are an integral
property of scientific evidence. Many have tried to assert that probability
arguments are misapplied to origins considerations. Yet the argumentation
is often flimsy (and no doubt the applications are not always above
reproach) but to flatly assert that probability considerations have no
bearing on the study of origins is to assert that the study of origins is
outside the domain of science. Incidentally, Walter Remine in his book The
Biotic Message, documents a number of misapplications of statistics by
conventional origins researchers that are worth reading.
Art
http://chadwicka.swac.edu