This thread is about teaching ID. Nowhere do I purport to be arguing against evolution theory. Here's a flash: ID and evolution may not be mutually exclusive. My understanding of the tangent we have been following was origin of life--a purely ID issue.
You argue the parameters. I offer that you propose alternatives and recalculate. The response goes straight to emotion. I didn't know that "crock" and "garbage" are meaningful scientific assessments. Nor did I know we were debating evolution. I though the origin of life was out of evolutionary bounds.
Do you have a theory of molecular self-assembly? At what point did the "spark of life" occur?
This exercise is simply showing that based on our current knowledge of nature, there isn't enough time for life to develop at random.
Again, you are limiting yourself to things you know. A VERY limited set of ideas to work with.
The problem is, you don't know what you'd need to know to make these sorts of calculations meaningful - nobody does. And your estimates are basically pulled straight out of your hat. Of the vast ocean of possible chains, you haven't got a clue how many of them are viable self-replicators, nor do you have any idea what a real minimum length for a viable self-replicator might be. There exist self-replicating polypeptides that are a mere 32 amino acids in length, so how on earth can you justify setting a minimum viable length of 29,000,000 nucleotides? You can't, and it's as simple as that.