This thread is a copy from my Facebook community page discussions board.
http://www.facebook.com/board.php?uid=173697882645130-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most common Anti-Evolution arguments posed by Muslims is that
"It cannot have arisen by chance" , generally in regards to the creation of life, Evolution and/or the Universe.
This redundant statement is believed to be so much of a 'good reason' that many proponents of Anti-Evolution will go as far as making this (identical) statement
UPTO 30 TIMES IN TEN MINUTES 
, Ref: Harun Yahya.
Todays topic will deal with the creation of life and how this argument is so easily refuted, literally to the point where we begin to notice that the claimants are purposely lying and creating the illusion that they actually have a valid argument, which they don't and never had...
Before we even take notice of the full argument, we can already dismiss it as nonsense, here are just a few reasons why:-
(1)
Chemical laws are certain laws in nature which are relevant to chemistry
(quite self explanatory and same applies to various physical laws also required).
It is in no way 'chance' that certain compounds will form when certain chemicals are introduced under relevant settings, this is the same reason why we are able to observe the formation of Amino Acids, monomers and Adenine without the need for intervention, so before we've even actually began, we can see that anyone arguing 'chance' is not taking the whole model into consideration and are in fact harping on a perspective only held by those who don't understand the basics of the subject.
Along with the chance statement, the 'evidence' for this argument is often presented as well in the form of a mass calculation concluding '
The chance of life being at 1 in xxxxxxxxxxx trillion' or something of that nature...Once again, here is another concept which can be dismissed without having to look at the calculation even once...
(1)
The calculation is based solely on the idea of a MODERN CELL forming spontaneously and assuming this version was exactly the same as the first primal cell and all events creating it were entirely randomized.
No one has ever claimed this to be the case to any extent ; No one assumes that the earliest and most primitive cell was anything like what we have today and no one assumes the events were randomized (as argued above).
(but then again, these people also don't accept evolution either so it's hardly shocking that their conclusion would be fatally flawed from the moment the pen hits the paper)
(2)
It assumes that the first cell is 'fixed' in its requirements
(meaning that any alterations, additions, removal or replacements to the protein or infact any other build within a cell (or the cell itself) would render it useless)
This is absolutely absurd, for example:
-A modern Mycobacterium genetalium has 400 proteins which can be reduced to 256.
-Almost any amino acid can be substituted.
-structurally non-identical bacterial proteins can be substituted for yeast proteins, and worm proteins for human proteins, and the organisms live without problems.
These are just a few examples to dismiss this idea that life (especially present day life) does not have a 'life sequence' as these people assume.
(We will disregard the other idea that this argument was founded on, I.E/ that we were a pre-determined outcome).
(3)
The calculation is based on sequential trials only, as if the entire planet only had the ability to provide nothing more that a single attempt at formation at any one time...waited, and if it failed....allowed it to take place once more.
No one presumes this was ever the case.
(4)
Probability statistics don't account for the reality of a situation.
A usual metaphor presented is that '
The chance of life is like a person finding the winning lottery ticket day after day'. this is a flawed metaphor, why?
Besides all of above, the ticket (life) has already been won (our existence), therefor the correct metaphor by the Muslims standard is 'finding a person who has won the lottery and telling them that they didn't because it was too improbable'.
When a person hears a probability statistic such as ' winning once in a 1000 years' , they assume it means that equal testing has been undertook (obviously it hasn't) , but in keeping with the lottery example - just because the conclusion of winning the lottery is 1/1000 years, doesn't prevent people from winning during that 1000 year period.
(5)
Any calculation is baseless.
What is 1+1+1+1+1+1+1 ?
Ok, and now, what is ?+?+1+n/a+?+3 ?
Don't know the answer?
The reason is quite simple, you don't know because not enough facts have been accounted for and not enough factual data is available to give a conclusive answer. This is exactly the same as a 'calculation for life'.
We have no observed life formation, we have no definitive explanation of our own life formation and even if we do, We have no comparative data to compare it with, therefor no number can be calculated beyond what we already know of , which is an irrelevant but expected 1/1.
So there we have a few (among many good reasons) as to why this concept is entirely invalid and down right disingenuous.
But just for the moment, let's assume that they were accurate and that 'chance' was the deciding role in everything of this nature...
-What is the probability that YOU exist through common pregnancy?
-At best its 1/3,000,000 , but 1/600,000,000 for a lot of couples.
-What is the probability that you survived?
-That you were born into a situation where you were in a household where you could afford an internet connection?
-The probability that you would be in a country where facebook was permitted?
-That you were born in a time where this discussion board existed?
-That you under went a number of situations that directed you to this page?
etc etc etc...
The chance of you being here at this moment and reading this article is 1 in a number so vast that it couldn't be typed in an hour...
Why is that? because the probability of everything in subsequent events increases every time a new factor is introduced, therefor statistically everything is too improbable to ever take place.
(Even seemingly random events such as randomly picking 5 cards out of a pack will always conclude that the probability of taking those 5 is ridiculously miniscule....whether linked or randomized, subsequent events become more improbable each time)
An average Muslim will then often argue..
"I wasn't the result of chance, God decided everything'
and if thats true and that 'god' predetermines everything in life, then how could I possibly be wrong?
Topic: 'Cannot arise by chance'