**Common
Disputes a 'Skeptic' may have with Creation**

**A True Skeptic Will
Let the Evidence Lead Her to a Valid Conclusion...Let's See if We Can Help Her Along... **

**The Lottery Paradox**

**Skeptic**:
It is not valid to assert that the infinitely small 'odds' against, for
example, an eye developing by chance, or Hawking's assertion that the
odds of the universe even existing are 1 in 10 billion, are
applicable. Because, for example, take a deck of cards and
lay them out one by one. Whatever arrangement of cards that
emerges, the odds are theoretically 10-3 against that particular
arrangement happening. But it did happen, and in fact these
'improbable' hands get dealt every time, so something is obviously
wrong with the application of these odds! Therefore, applying
these 'odds' to the creation of the eye etc. is also invalid.

**Christian
Response**: The Lottery Paradox addresses the
seemingly inconsistent logic at work when something that is 'against
the odds' does in fact happen (eg. picking the right lottery
numbers.) We hear that the odds against winning the Powerball
are 1 in 50,000,000 or so, so the odds are unlikely that any particular
person will win, yet someone will. The answer to the Lottery
Paradox requires us be careful in what we are applying our odds to.

The above Skeptical Dispute is an example of a semi-valid dispute, that can easily lead to confusion. It is true that the 10-3 odds of the card deck appearing in the manner that it did is not valid, BECAUSE there is a 100% chance that the cards will be arranged in SOME manner. The 10-3 odds can only be applied only if a person PREDICTS what the arrangement will be BEFORE they are laid out. So the odds of any arrangement of cards occurring is in fact 1-1.

But, if we know what a 'perfect bridge hand' is, and it gets laid out, we NOW can suspect that the high odds were beaten, because we know that something special, not random, has happened. We know this because we have defined previously what 'special' is (the 'perfect bridge hand').

Now
let's see how the application of the 'odds-making' to the 'scientific
evidence' works. For example, we know of ONLY ONE arrangement
of DNA to produce living humans. We therefore cannot validly
assume that there are others. In effect, this existing
arrangement is the equivalent of a 'perfect bridge hand', NOT just a
random occurrence. So, the 'perfect arrangement' would have
to had been 'predicted', or 'needed' to occur for life to happen,
therefore the extreme odds against it happening by chance to in fact
apply. A Naturalist may now speculate that there 'could' have
been other arrangements which may have caused life to be silicon based,
or develop four eyes, or whatever, but this is pure speculation and the
'Naturalist' has just pursued refuge in the realm of the 'un-natural'.

**The
Eternal Monkey and Shakespeare**

**Skeptic**:
Given enough time (and certainly with an eternity), a monkey at a
typewriter could eventually type the complete works of
Shakespeare. Therefore, the assertion that, for example, DNA
molecules could arrange themselves into the proper sequence to create
humans and life is theoretically possible, given enough time.

**Christian
Response**: Why would that monkey not simply write an
eternity's worth of jibberish? Anyhow, unless you believe in
the effectively defunct 'perpetual universe' theory (which has been
replaced by the 'Big Bang' theory), the universe hasn't been here for
an eternity anyhow, so the point is moot!