what are the odds? can you figure it out? why or why not?

Question

if a source makes a sells an undetermined amount of ticket, and another undetermined amount of people buy these tickets
what re the odds of winning?
what about if some buy a large amount, relative to the others, what are his odds?
what if all the tickets are sold
the odds?
what about if they are not sold?
the odds?
what are the odds of people with consecutive birthdates,and consecutive heights (in full inches) buying all of the grand prize, 1st prize and 2nd prize tickets?

Is it possible to make odds?

how is that different than trying to calculate the odds of life when the full mass of the universe is not known?
nor the energy used to combine that mass?
nor the full elemental composition of the universe?
or if the mass was all together at the 'beginning'?

Is it not a bit arrogant to think that anyone, here, from our severely limited vantagepoint, could proclaim the odds of life and evolution?
and what about the odds or atomic combinations coming alive? how do you begin?

I am glad that you, for one, admit the possibility that creation exists and could be wholly valid.
as for its value, if true, its value cannot be OVERSTATED!
thirdly, it is widely recognized and admitted at the upper sicientific levels, that the ONLY predictions of evolution is the survival of the fittest theorum.
It has been published by leading evolutionists, that there exists
1. NO transitional fossils ever found
2. NO direct evidence of formations of the universe

These statements are always followed by the catch-all of
"absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence"
but this argument is soundly ridiculed when creationists say the same.
No creationist that I know of has ever fought th MACRO-EVOLUTION idea.
that being a change in traits.
Often the case of the speckeled moth is cited by the evolutionists, but that PROOF has been exposed, as the photographs were faked, being that moths were dead and positioned on the tree to make them appear in abundance.

While I do agree that certain traits would be of benefit in certain circumstances, and these would help in survival, and hence, become dominant in the region.

I do not agree that the gene would become dominant and it has NEVER been shown to happen

Further, the evolution side continues to ignor, due to lack of EVIDENCE, and even credible theory, how the addition of genetic material cm into being.

I cite the afliction of downs syndrome:
gorillas of chimps may be 98-99% the same (They do have to survive in the same biosphere and are similarly shaped). and yet look at downs syndrome those people have a slight .0000001% difference, genetically, and they are much diminished in their capacity, how could larger changes occur, over and over again, to many individuals that mesh and are beneficially reproducable?
that is where the math comes in and it fails
ALWAYS!

Answer 1

None of these things is appropriate for probabilistic analysis. But the theory of evolution has nothing to do with probability.
There are sound reasons for using the theory of evolution:
1. The theory of evolution is established science: this means that it makes predictions which workers in the field find useful because they are correct. Even if there were not overwhelming evidence showing that the theory is correct, and why (which, of course there is), the fact that it makes correct predictions is sufficient grounds for accepting it.
2. Every theory which posits divine intervention to achieve a result is irrefutable: there is no means whatsoever of showing that such a theory is false (because it could, in fact, be true, with no difference in observable results). It is provable that the predictive power of any theory obtains strictly from its refutability. Hence, no theory involving divine intervention can predict anything: all such theories are useless.

See reference for much more detail.

Answer 2

tickets bought* prizes +tickets bought* prizes-1+tickets bought* prizes-2...

Answer 3

this is one very odd question...