Have probabilities been discussed in this thread?

Probabilities of what?

Probabilities of what?

Savell I don't reckon I'll have eternity to live in this body. The trumpet sounds for everyone when death comes calling. I'll put my faith in Jesus, no matter the time frame of creation, and others can put their faith in science. No sweat off my back.

…. Agreed

… but churches do attract perverts

What is the probability of the outer layer of the blastocyst forming a hollow ball of cells that forms after fertilization and contributes to the formation of the placenta. The placenta is a vital organ that develops during pregnancy, providing nutrients and oxygen to the developing fetus while removing waste products. If the mothers blood or babies blood mixes the mothers body detects it as a foreign object and aborts it. Everything is so precise what is the probability that it is just accident and not from design ?

Probabilities makes one think of Vegas or winning the lottery. Now if one is talking about designing something from a plan then probability of success seems to be greater.
Just heard a toddler fell 15 stories and lived maybe a broken arm. What is the probability of that happening ?

There are several scientific problems with the big bang theory. For one, we are missing monopoles.

A “monopole” is a hypothetical massive particle that is just like a magnet but with only one pole. So a monopole would have either a “north” pole or a “south” pole, but not both. Particle physicists claim that the high temperature conditions of the big bang should have created magnetic monopoles.

Since monopoles are predicted to be stable, they should have lasted to this day. Yet, despite considerable searching, monopoles have not been found. The fact that we don’t find any monopoles strongly suggests that the universe never was that hot. This indicates that there never was a big bang. But the lack of monopoles is not problematic for the Bible’s account of creation because the universe did not start at extremely high temperatures.

A second scientific problem with the big bang is there is too little antimatter.

The big bang model proposes that matter (hydrogen and helium gas) was created from energy as the universe expanded. However, experimental physics tells us that whenever matter is created from energy, such a reaction also produces antimatter. Antimatter has similar properties to matter, except the charges of the particles are reversed.

The big bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Thus, if the big bang were true, there should be an equal amount of matter and antimatter in the universe today. But there is not. The visible universe is comprised almost entirely of matter—with only trace amounts of antimatter.

A third scientific problem with big bang cosmology is there are no ‘population III’ stars.

The big bang model by itself can account for the existence of only the three lightest elements (hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium). This leaves the other naturally occurring elements unexplained. Since the conditions in the big bang model are not right to form these heavier elements, secular astronomers believe that stars have produced the remaining elements by nuclear fusion in their cores, which then distribute the heavier elements into space when they exploded (went supernovae).

Second- and third-generation stars are thus “contaminated” with small amounts of these heavier elements. If this were true, then the first stars would be comprised of only the three lightest elements (since these would have been the only elements in existence initially). Some such stars should still be around today since their lifespans are supposed to exceed the 13.8 billion years that has elapsed since the big bang. Such stars would be called “population III” stars. Amazingly population III stars have not been found anywhere. All known stars have at least trace amounts of heavy elements in them.