mathmatics of evolution please watch and respond?

Those numbers are staggering, and the best explanation the atheists can come up with is "that's typical pseudo-statistical bullshit."

LOL.

What I find really rich is this argument from the atheists: Science has shown that "nothing" is unstable, and given a pocket of "nothing," the laws of quantum physics say that universes with their own laws of physics and time and such will emerge from these pockets. It happens all the time, and with so many millions and billions of universes popping in and out of existence, those statistical improbabilities not only become possible, but probable. The thing they seem to overlook when arguing this point, though, is that if an infinite number of universes can and have sprung into existence, each with its own laws of physics and each with an infinite number of possible configurations, then it not only becomes possible but probable that *at least one* of those universes has a God, and *at least one* of those universes is inhabited by "invisible pink unicorns," and *at least one* of those universes is inhabited by "flying spaghetti monsters."

This is yet another reason why I simply cannot take an atheist seriously.

Typical creationist psuedo-statistical bullshit fails for very obvious reasons:

1.) The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life.

2.) The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.

3.) The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.

4.) The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

My thought is that the maker of the video understands neither evolution nor mathematics.

And I don't know why anyone would expect mature answers to something so infantile.

No.