[Tribune7]

It also assumes that the reactions are all independent events. Since they very likely aren't, the whole thing falls apart.

I know. Hoyle posited 10^40000. I cut it down somewhat. Now, suppose it's only 10^1000? You still want to go with those odds?

Something about it not declaring any such thing makes me think that.

So your saying that science declares that cells can come from something other than cells and that the spontaneous generation of life is not impossible?

Perhaps it always has existed. Perhaps it's some kind of temporal loop.

OK. :-)

At present, science does not have sufficient information to answer the question "where did this all ultimately originate".

Which is about a big a statement of blind faith as the temporal loop. :-)

[Dimensio]

Hoyle posited 10^40000. I cut it down somewhat. Now, suppose it's only 10^1000? You still want to go with those odds?

No, because you've not justified your number.

So your saying that science declares that cells can come from something other than cells and that the spontaneous generation of life is not impossible?

The so-called "Law of Biogenesis" states that "complex" organisms (such as current bacteria) cannot come from non-living substances, not that non-living organic molecules cannot form into simple cell-like structures that reproduce and evolve (thus becoming the bacteria we see today).

Which is about a big a statement of blind faith as the temporal loop.

Saying that science is currently unable to adequately address the ultimate origins of matter and energy is a statement of faith? I would think it a statement of fact.