The Case for Theism

[i win you lose.com]

Genkaus?

Why do you suppose Genkaus is an authority on Borel's law of mathematical probability or that Genkaus has some obligation to do your calculations for you?

And are you talking about Borel's law of large numbers? I've never heard of Borel's law of mathematical probability.

Anyway, to address your earlier question, we don't know for sure how abiogenesis occurred, but a plausible pathway is self-replicating RNA (see RNA world). That may not be the explanation, and it certainly isn't a complete one, but no one in biology is proposing that step A was a fully-functioning cell that happened to self-assemble. Large molecules self-assemble all the time though, and all it would take to get the ball rolling is one self-replicating molecule in all the possible environments it could occur in with hundreds of millions of years of opportunities to do so.

---

So the best you can do is offer a hypothetical which you don't actually think is true.

Just as a clarification, it wasn't the idea of an eternal universe that was rejected, it was the idea of life having existed eternally.

You just want to obfuscate and cloud the issue because that's what atheists do in defense of atheism.

Is that what you did in defense of atheism?

That's why theism is an opinion...as is atheism.

Correct!

Because of Chemical Evolution's inconceivable claims, some mathematicians set to work on calculating the probability that Chemical Evolution could have actually happened at all. 

Experts tell us there are roughly 1080 particles (electrons and protons) in the entirety of our immense universe. That's 10 with 80 zeros behind it, or "one hundred million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion." 

In other words, 1080 is a lot of particles. 

Imagine for a moment (as some experts have estimated) that each particle in the universe could perform 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1020) events per second. 

Also assume for a moment that the universe is more than 15 billion years old (about 1018 seconds)—also a generous approximation. 

*If these numbers are reasonable, this means that in our universe there could have been, to date, no more than roughly 10118 chemical events (1080 x 1020 x 1018 = 10118)—in other words, 10118 "possible" interactions among all the protons and electrons in the immeasurable history of our universe. *

I say "possible" because it's quite certain there were far "less" than that. Why? 

Because 1080 assumes every single proton and electron "in the universe" has interacted with every single "other" proton and electron. *Obviously, this is extremely overstated.* 

In fact, most areas of the universe are totally isolated from the others, separated by immense expanses of outer space. They will never interact with matter outside of their close proximity. Even on our earth, the vast majority of protons and electrons will never get close enough to interact with the vast majority of "other" protons and electrons on earth. 

What I'm trying to say is...10118 is the total possible chemical interactions IF every proton and electron interacted with every other proton and electron. Therefore it is obvious that 10118 far exceeds the actual number of chemical events that have in fact occurred in the universe to date. 

In view of this—and still being extremely generous—*mathematicians have concluded that it is ridiculous to think an event with odds of less than 1 in 1050 will ever happen*.

Why? Because chances are, there have been far LESS than 1050 chemical events in the combined history of our universe. 

It would therefore be impossible for a chance occurrence to happen that required MORE events than 1050. 

This conclusion is called "Borel's Law of mathematical probability.

[Mod: Quote taken from this site.]

---

1080 = 10^80... 1018 = 10^18... 1050 = 10^50....etc...