P.S. I was going to leave a comment there, but what's the point? Justin is your typical Blogging Tory -- hideously, embarrassingly, gloriously, spectacularly ignorant, and proud of it.
And for those of you who want evidence for evolution, here you go. Enjoy.
AFTERSNARK: Not surprisingly, Justin's first scientifically illiterate commenter brings up the "junkyard 747" analogy, as if that's supposed to be devilishly clever:
I have more faith that a whirlwind swept through a junkyard at one end, and came out the other end with a 747 jumbo jet created and flying on path to Narita airport.
At which point we're all supposed to gasp in shock, and think, "Wow! That really is improbable!" Except for one awkward detail.
Wankers like Justin and their ignorant groupies love to bandy about analogies that involve wildly improbable events, such as tornadoes assembling airplanes, or entire amino acids magically forming in a single step. "Oh, man," they howl, "that sure is improbable, isn't it? Like, you know, 75 billion jillion skillion gazillion to one, har har!" But here's the problem.
If you really want to discredit something as wildly improbable, then you kind of have to be prepared to present a more probable alternative. As in, OK, if it didn't happen by what you call "chance," how did it happen? To which the ignorant wanker will start to mention "divine intervention" and that's where the roof caves in.
Because if you want to talk probabilities, then, by all means, feel free to calculate the probability of God. No, really. Because it's amusing to hear people laugh and laugh about the statistical unlikelihood of things like amino acids and proteins and single-celled organisms, and when you politely ask them what they propose instead, they casually answer, "Oh, an all-powerful divine being."
So, my dear wankers, by all means, if you want to talk math, let's talk math. Specifically, I want to see your calculations regarding the probability of the existence of God. In detail. Show your work. Skip no steps. List all initial assumptions. Remember to carry the three.
You want to play with numbers, fine -- let's play with numbers. Because it's damned amusing to see people who profess absolute astonishment at the probability of simple biological processes turn around and, in the next sentence, quite off-handedly accept an ominscient, omnipotent, infinite Supreme Being as a statistically viable alternative. Yeah, that's logic.
So let's go, wanks. Especially you there with the junkyard and the 747. Let's see some legitimate analysis. Or, barring that, how about you just shut the hell up?