Well sir as we all know neither you nor any other evolutionist has a reasonable answer for the statistical impossibility of the conundrum. The claims of evolution cannot be demonstrated in a controlled environment let alone being observed as a totally random occurrence.What is being being passed off as science is not only a myth, but also a hoax.
Not only do those anthropic principles need to be introduced at precisely the right time, but they need to be maintained with the same precision for life to be maintained. Where else do we have such precision without original design or superintending maintenance? This is incontrovertible evidence for both an Intelligent Designer and an omnipotent Being.
Was the Pothole made to fit the mud puddle, or does the mud puddle conform to the existing pot hole.
Image you have a road, a million miles long, and it's perfectly smooth at every point except one, where there exits a single pot hole. If it rain on the entirety of the road, there's only one place the mud puddle can form.
See, part of the problem with your "statistics", is you don't know the denominator. You have no idea how long the road is, nor how long it rains, consequently you have no idea if the number that you think are so big are actually large compared to the number of total opportunities for the occurrence happen.
Second, there's an additional flaw in your "fine tuning" argument. Those estimates you present are for life to occur as we know it.
Change the variable and you may get a "failed Universe" by our standards, but it might be perfect for some other version of "life". Consequently, we don't have enough information to accurately calculate the probabilities in question.
This just sidesteps the origin of the process. Are laws of nature by design or did they start randomly--that is the question. How did they come to respond to need? Why do they not do the opposite of what is needed? If we cannot be predictive of anything on the basis of what we do know than we have no science at all but merely speculations. For your argument to prove anything it proves too much.
I love this argument of the denominator may have changed--that would be the death knell of uniformitarianism upon which carbon dating is made. If you lose this to solve one problem you now cannot logically assume that you know the age of the universe to be 13.8 billion years.
