The only logical and scientific explanation for existence and life is a Supernatural Creator capable of creating a temporal world. The Darwinist and his fake fallacy of the "Argument from Incredulity" will not fly in the real world. Can you imagine a murder suspect's lawyer trying to use such an argument in court? Let's think on that:
A wealthy single man in his thirties was found strangled to death in his home. Now here is the evidence:
The murder victim lived in a home that had security cameras that viewed all sides of the house and had a entrance keypad that would require a code to be entered to allow entry. The victim was killed on a Thursday. His uncle was the ONLY person caught on video entering and leaving on Thursday, his prints were found on the keypad. The victim was strangled by a length of rope and the exact same kind of rope was found in the uncle's shed. The rope used to strangle the victim is not found, but the uncle could have disposed of it in many ways. The uncle had no alibi for Thursday, as he had called off of work and no one could remember seeing him for a space of about eight hours that day. The uncle would be one of the family members who would inherit the wealth of the victim as he was listed in the victim's will. His alibi was that he was sick and went to bed and, if he was seen on video it must have been someone else in disguise.
The prosecuting attorney lays out the scenario - the uncle had motive, he had opportunity and he had the means to murder his nephew. He was the only person detected at the scene on the day of the murder, he had no alibi and his fingerprints were on the entrance keypad.
The defending attorney's defense? "Your honor, the prosecuting attorney is using a logical fallacy we call the argument from incredulity. Even though he cannot imagine a way someone else could have murdered the victim, my client was sick in bed as he testified. Surely no one could use the argument from incredulity to send a man to jail for the rest of his natural life?"
Would you care to guess what the jury and judge would think of such a defense? That defense would be so pathetic that the uncle, who would be convicted, might apply for a retrial because of his incompetent defense attorney!!! YET in science this kind of argument is what Darwinists use when Creationists point out that so many aspects of their mythology is logically and statistically impossible! Just think about that?
"If you properly shuffle a deck of cards, in all likelihood, the resulting deck has never been seen before in the history of the world."
Number of permutations possible = 52! = 8.0658175e+67 (i.e. 8 followed by 67 zeroes)
Playing cards were invented in China in the 9th Century.
So, humans have been playing cards for 1200 years i.e 1200*365*24*60*60 = 37843200000 seconds.
Even with the blown-out-of-proportion assumption that there are 1 billion shuffles per second in the world, the total number of shuffles is 3.78432e+19 which is about 2*10^48 times lesser than the total permutations.
Hence, the probability of at least 2 decks being the same is infinitesimally small. - Deepak Mehta
Intelligent Design Proponents such as William Dembski have debunked this fake fallacy nicely by investigating the fallacy in comparison to actual scientific investigation:
Can ‘chance’ count to 10?
The theory of evolution
Darwinism is impossible from a statistical standpoint. For a Darwinist to bring along the fallacy we have sliced and diced, it is actually the equivalent of waving a white flag. Darwinists cannot defend their failed hypothesis, so they use false fallacies, censorship, propaganda and bullying tactics to threaten the career of any scientist or educator or media outlet that dares defy their lockstep fallacious fairy tale!
No upward evolution of one kind of organism turning into another has been observed, but rather speciation and extinction, which is what the Creation model predicts. Mutations are not creative, they are destructive and threaten to eventually kill off all higher organisms as they accumulate in our gene pools. We have found that, in the case of reproduction, the mother lays the framework for the child so that the child will be the same kind of organism as the mother. Furthermore, only the same kind of organism can reproduce. In cases of sexual reproduction, a male and female of the same kind can mate and no others. For instance, a dog and a dog can mate and, since a dog and a wolf can mate we know that wolves and dogs are species of the same kind. A lion and a lion can mate. But a lion and a tiger can also mate, so we know that lions and tigers are members of the same cat kind. Creationism has been supported by experiment and observation and Darwinism has been an epic fail. It just doesn't happen and observation of the way organisms reproduce has taught us that it could not happen and therefore never has happened.