Of Probabilities and the Design Inference
As we IDists have tried to explain if something is outside or even approaching the universal probability bound, that means given all the resources in the universe it could not or would be very, very difficult to achieve what is being investigated given no agency involvement.
Cards usually comes up as an example. What usually happens after that is some evotard or evotards will erect a strawman of that example.
For example poker and the royal flush. We IDists say that being dealt a royal flush in a poker game is improbable but not impossible. The (approximate) odds of getting one is 649,739 : 1. No one would be suspicious of a cheater, ie design, if someone just gets one royal flush dealt.
But getting dealt, say, 5 royal flushes in a row, even though the odds are the same with each hand, would be a reason to be suspicious of cheating, especially if other hands are also high hands that keep their holders playing and betting.
The other side of that is if you keep getting dealt horrible/ unplayable hands and keep losing your ante. Sooner or later you either have to walk away or shoot someone. And you would be justified either way (although you still may have to do some time).
So that is the design inference wrt probabilities. If highly improbable things keep happening then most likely they aren't as improbable as you were led to believe. And unless mathematics lie then that means there was something else besides probabilities at play.
The evotard strawman comes in when they just stop at one hand and point out that the odds of getting any hand, say the one you were dealt, are very high. Obviously not realizing that in a poker game the odds of a player getting dealt a hand is 1 and obviously not understanding a design inference requires more than one highly improbable event.
HUMP THAT STRAWMAN!
(hey richie retardo is good for something after all)