A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, actually computes the odds against such an occurrence at only one chance in 10(160). That means 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number too large even to articulate. Another scientist expressed it this way:
"The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. For it to occur on earth alone would require many, almost endless, billions of years." The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, p. 23.
(That certainly sounds more improbable than an intelligent designer wouldn’t you think?)
It certainly
sounds improbable, but in the absence of any idea what they actually based that calculation on it is pretty much a meaningless number.
How familiar was Guye with biochemistry? What were his assumptions? Why should we give any more credence to Guye's figure than to Hoyle's or than to a figure I come up with?
This seems especially obtuse since you are replying with a theoretical calculation base on assumptions which we can't scrutinise.
You haven't provided a scintilla of actual scientific evidence to contradict any evolutionary assumption just a set of counter assumptions.
You haven't even provided any real argument to rebut, your whole argument hinges on the reliability of the calculations you quoted to give an accurate measure of probability presumably supposed to reflect on abiogenesis.
Since there is no reason to beieve that it is an accurate estimate the rest of your argument seems superfluous. Why not provide some scientific evidence contrary to evolution before asking...
How can we explain the naive insistence of evolutionists to believe something so extremely out of character for their scientific background?
If you can prove my Christian beliefs are not exactly the same as your beliefs in so far as, both sides require a certain amount of faith in order to believe, then I would be delighted to hear it.
This sounds like you are ready to plunge down a philosophical rabbit hole of epistemology as soon as the emptiness of your 'scientific' arguments are demonstrated.
TTFN,
WK
P.S. This is really off topic here, perhaps you would be better off posting to a thread on abiogenesis since that seems to be what your arguemnt is focusing on, there are a number of such threads ongoing in the
Origin of Life.
™ Version 4.2