If something is conceivably possible, must it therefore eventually occur?
Many say yes. Even scientists—who should know better—often accede to this fallacy which is inextricably woven into the evolutionists’ world view. The entire body of thinking surrounding and supporting the theory of evolution relies on the assertion of this fundamentally flawed idea: If something could occur, it must therefore eventually occur. This is a logical error.
I once worked in a machine shop where a coworker proclaimed that “if you disassemble this vise (which had about ten individual components) and put the parts into that tumbler over there and turn it on, then the vise will eventually assemble itself.”
Well, never mind the fact that the pieces will likely grind one another into dust long before that ever happens… this assurance of his is obviously groundless, since there is a complete dearth of empirical evidence to back up his claim—namely: the fact that the occurrence has never been observed.
In fact, even the fundamental laws of physics and probability refute his claim, since any given tumble-and-fall sequence is more likely to disassemble two parts than to assemble them, hence more disassembly will always be going on than assembly, even though some tumble-and-fall sequences might result in a partial assembly.
His assurance that the vise will one day assemble itself is actually an expression of his own faith in the theory of evolution, wherein higher levels of order and sophistication arise from random mutations of lower species apart from the guiding hand of an intelligent creative force.
According to this gentleman’s theory, one should be able to drive a rattle-trap ‘49 Chevy truck recklessly over seventy miles of bad road, and have it emerge into town like a brand new vehicle, tight as a pin. Of course we know that these seventy miles of rough road are what converted the new truck into a rattle trap to begin with. We all know this. Rough roads don't tighten bolts.
And regarding the vise in the tumbler: here's what we're pretty sure we can observe… if we place an assembled vise into the tumbler and run it long enough, it will eventually disassemble itself. That's what we know for sure, not the other way round.
So, no, a group of gorillas with typewriters will, in fact, not ever type out the Encyclopedia Britannica. It just won't happen. In fact, if they type one character per second, it will take them up to 37 million billion years just to type the word “Encyclopedia." But they might get lucky! There is a chance of one in one hundred million million million million that they get “Encylopedia” within the first eleven seconds. If they then fail to get “Britannica" next… they start over. Thirty-seven million billion years later, they get another chance. Go!
So it's pretty clear that just because something is not impossible, this certainly does not mean that it must therefore eventually occur. It is more likely—far more likely—never to occur. This is why aircraft don't fly backwards, why water doesn't freeze when you boil it, why tornadoes don't assemble houses from piles of raw materials, and why you can't create wood from ashes by cooling your stove. It just doesn't go that way.
In summary, the concept of the evolution of the species from a single primordial protein molecule is nothing more than a romantic idea, requiring an overwhelming mountain of wishful thinking just to imagine it. Within the realm of physics and chemistry, it will not happen, not even once, let alone tens of thousands of times in progressive succession.
To put it bluntly in the modern vernacular: Evolution of the species is flippin’ impossible.