Typical emotional Darwinist assessment. LOL. Now we will go through the inevitable nitpicking whether we should use 106 or 107 as a parameter. Bottom line is that you still cannot reach a probability that isn't zero. What the heck, I'm on lunch, and your emotional argument is too juicy to ignore.
I also notice you offer no alternative calculation.
Contemporary timelines place the time from formation of the earth (1.4 (1017) seconds) to genesis of life (1.1(1017) seconds) at 3 (1016) seconds. Use something larger if you wish. Use 1018 seconds...the entire life of the universe. You still can't produce a probability that isn't zero.
Careful on your argument as to primordial pools and parallelism. You may skew the results in the opposite direction.
there are millions, if not billions, of potential locations
BTW 109 is a billion
Humans should be considered the prime organism? Well maybe I better stop here and thank you for your defense of creationism. Do you know what the prime organism is? Oh that's right. Darwinists aren't interested in the prime organism.
Know much mathematics? A geometric curve is about as generous to evolution as you can get. No linear curve, not even a multi-order polynomial, just a very generous gift that isn't enough. As for 0.0001%...again let's be generous. Empiric data don't even support 0.01%.
Again being generous to Darwinists, I simplified the possible interactions from 40-50 (which would yield 1/40 or 1/50 success rate) to 16 elementary cases. Given the sugars, and the fact that they are three dimensional, when two entities try to bind there is one binding angle that is always successful, twelve that are always unsuccessful, and three that may be successful. So round up to 0.20 to be generous.
Feel free to make your own estimates. Mine are within an order of magnitude, but when you're talking 10-100 000 probabilities it's like spitt'n in the Rhine.
No. It's a statement of fact, supported by the remainder of my post. Your calculations are worthless.
I also notice you offer no alternative calculation.
I don't have to in order to point out that yours is a crock.
You still can't produce a probability that isn't zero.
Of course not - you've very carefully stacked the deck to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. Your entire model is worthless, so tweaking the numbers is an exercise in futility.
Humans should be considered the prime organism?
I point out that you don't know what such a "prime organism" should look like, and therefore, your estimates of what it takes to make one are worthless. Worthlessness, further compounded by your selection of one of the largest known genomes in existence. Why should the "prime organism" require a genome of 29,000,000 base pairs, especially when we know of contemporary organisms with genomes less than 2% that large? Answer: it doesn't. Your postulate of 0.0001% of 290 billion is, prima facie, a crock.
Mine are within an order of magnitude...
No, you've simply invented them out of thin air. You don't know what you should know to make such a model work, but you behave as though you do. This is, needless to say, practically the dictionary definition of irrationality. You have nowhere demonstrated that any evolutionary theorist claims that the development of life proceeded in the manner you suggest, but you spend an awful lot of time knocking it down nonetheless. This is a classic strawman argument. Go away and learn something about what evolutionary theory does and does not claim, and come back when you are ready to have a serious discussion about the theory as it actually is, rather than discussing some theory you just made up all by yourself.
You neglect to account for changing geometry during bonding ...