When we weigh the probabilities against amino acids forming to produce even a single protein (I can back this up with Roger Olsen’s calculations if anyone wishes me to bore them to death) and then ponder the astronomical odds against the first cell forming on its on from a primordial ooze, I can’t comprehend that any free thinker could actually contemplate any other theory than creationism seriously.
I'm not sure the odds matter at all. I mean, it only has to happen once, right? And once it happens (i.e. you have the minimal organism, able to manage chemical reations and reproduce) evolution takes over. The "odds" arguments I've always read produce the odds of abiogenesis occuring in one abiogenetic event. Sure, those are probably astronomically low. But if you have these events occuring over and over again, it approaches certainty that it will happen.
Conceivably, "near-miss" abiogenesis events (that don't produce the minimal organism, but could) could occur several times a second given the presence of the appropriate chemicals. Like I said, it only has to be successful once. It's like a random-walk: while the odds of being at any position on the Road to Abiogenesis are pretty small, given sufficient time, it's certain you will arrive at the destination (succesful abiogenesis). (I assume that if you're willing to argue from probabilistic math, you're familiar with random walks and the Gambler's Paradox, etc. If not I suggest you may wish to aquaint yourself with a little more math before you try to bring down science with it.)
So, the question for creationists is: given that the odds of abiogenesis are non-zero (as apparently you accept), and nature could try several times a second for billions of years, how can you NOT believe it happened?
------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.
™ Version 4.2