Nice baiting, but the facts are clear. With regard to origin of life, you have a greater chance of winning the powerball lottery every second you are alive 10-17 than the chance life has of spontaneously generating on earth during the geologic timeline 10-164 314. Or in simpler terms probability = ZERO.Curious assertion. What are you assembling in that model, and how is it being assembled? I never bother to check the math on these creationist dumb-dumbisms. I check the model. It's always something jumping together all at once from tiny parts. ("Half a cell is useless and would promptly 'die' before it could live.")
Your models and their improbability are an argument against, say, a human being made from dirt in one afternoon. Even God wouldn't try to make a bacterium that way.
Evolutionary models are gradual. They involve massive parallelism of experiment. They involve boostrapping from and building upon stable or semi-stable simpler precursors. They allow time.
If your model isn't that model, and it clearly isn't, then you have just made a good argument against creationism. All of your arguments are based on ignorance--your own.
Someone somewhere published some dazzling numbers and, grasping for any straw you can find, you took them. Or, vaguely remembering arguments of this sort, you whipped some up out of your little head to look like what you remembered.
Doesn't matter. Bad model = garbage in = garbage out.
A detailed history of cretinist bad models with critical analysis.
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations, an across-the-board generic debunking.
Yes, the facts are clear. You haven't said a true thing yet and you don't have the integrity to care.
You refuse to check the math, you again use plurium interrogationum, and summarily dismiss the conclusion. Then you resort to argumentum ad hominem.
I would gladly share the boundary conditions for your own calculation. This assumes you understand statistical mechanics. But given your emotional state, IMHO we would start aruging over whether the age of the earth is 1.4 (1017) seconds, whether 0.0001% of a genetic chain such as Amoeba proteus with 2.9 (1011) base pairs would be adequate on a geometric model of a prime organism's increased genetic replicative efficiencies, whether 1010 primordial pools is acceptable, the chance of trail success given geometries of the sugars and phosphates, etc...
You haven't said a true thing yet...
I said, "Temporal life exists." Is this not true?
...and you don't have the integrity to care. All of your arguments are based on ignorance--your own. et al
Friend, if you wish to argue, then argue. There is no reason to insult me because you disagree with my conclusions. Buh bye.