You said, “Therefore we shouldn’t call any scientific theory a fact.”
MY RESPONSE: Yay! Let’s drink to that.
You said, “A numeric calculation is not a necessary part of a scientific theory.”
MY RESPONSE. It is not necessary, but it is often used to back up a scientific theory. The lack of probability calculations to back up evolution shows the bankruptcy of the evolutionary hypothesis. I think that geneticists realize this, so they have started supporting their statements with mathematical calculations.
You said, “There is a real science of probability.”
MY RESPONSE: I know. It is what I am talking about.
You said, “Show me the calculations and I will show you how the science of probability theory is misapplied.”
MY RESPONSE: Are you assuming , before even seeing my calculations, that I made a mistake?
You said, “Irrelevant, since evolution does not posit that random mutations alone drove any significant evolutionary change.”
MY RESPONSE: True, evolution needs more than random mutations. Actually, much more than random mutations. Chance alone cannot drive evolution.
You said, “… it is no wonder that you have trouble understanding evolution.”
MY RESPONSE: God bless you.
You said, “Just as observations of radium decay serve only to illustrate extremely minute decay, yet we confidently extrapolate to what will happen in 1600 years.”
MY RESPONSE: Radium decay is not a complex process like evolution is. While you can extrapolate numbers in radium decay, it is not that straightforward when it comes to evolution where there are more variable involved and more complex processes to account for. You might think, for example, that genetic mutation and natural selection are drivers of evolution. Well, they are. And they might explain the development and survival of a certain property that you observe in your experiments, but they are hardly adequate to explain the origin of a species as a creature of nature. That a bat develop a thin skin flap might help it to fly. But how does that genetic mutation account for the concomitant growth of the fingers and the skeletal structure to enable its wing? And they all have to grow together to give the bat an advantage. So many questions. The evolutionist can only speculate, but cannot prove.