[usastandsunited]

Remember that the total energy in the Universe is extremely close to zero.

Null and zero are two completely different things. All that energy couldn't have come from a null.

[Gargantua]

Darwin's model for his Theory of Evolution starts with the premise of "a small, warm pond" in which gathered, over time, the ingredients necessary for the randomly accidental (or un-designed) origins of life as we know it today.

The problem for evolutionists is that it takes over 2,000 different enzymes in specific combination for the creation of one (1) protein cell.

The liklihood of those some 2,000 enzymes occurring at the same place in that pond as necessary to create one (1) protein cell is 1 to the 40th power. That is, 1 X 10 followed by 39,999 zeros.

Given that the entire number of atoms estimated to exist in the known universe is only 1 X 10 followed by 7,300 zeros, the mathematical liklihood of that random collection of enzymes in Darwin's "warm pond" creating the first protein far exceeds any statistical probability for its ever having happened, even if the world were trillions of years old.

It was a creative Theory, but nothing more. And what science now knows pretty well debunks both the Theory and its apologists.

Of course, evolutionists don't like to talk about this problem with their little "theory."

[Alamo-Girl]

Kudos for bringing up null and zero in your discussion! It is a most engaging aspect of the debate we've only touched on from time-to-time --- zero being unique and infinite in properties, null with regard to Ayn Sof and so forth.

[Doctor Stochastic]

All that energy couldn't have come from a null.

There is no "all that energy." There total energy is zero, which is really nothing to get excited about.

What do you mean by "null"? If you wish to introduce new terms, you should define them.