No, as I said, to date ALL creatard probability arguments have been fatally flawed. No math is needed to debunk them. If you base an argument on a fatally flawed premise one only needs to point out the flaw and the argument is voided.<quoted text>Probability barriers are categorically ignored, not answered. In the end, the old "argument from incredulity" card is conveniently pulled out, and the skeptic of evolution is ridiculed for not having faith in a theory that cannot be defended with scientific explanations.
Why do you continually end your posts with bigoted religious comments? As I've said dozens of times, evolution cannot be defended without references to religion. The more you get nailed to the wall, the more cheap and inflammatory your rhetoric becomes.
Here is an extreme version of a fatally flawed argument: Premise all yellow cars are Jaguars. Once someone say this it does not matter how many models of yellow Jaguars he can site the example of one yellow car that is not a Jaguar debunks the argument. No one has to do any more work than that. It does not matter if all of the cars you chose were yellow Jaguars, that is immaterial to the fact that other cars can be yellow too. The fact that your opening premise is incorrect makes all of the math that follows immaterial to the argument.