Is chemical evolution reasonable, mathematically speaking
Yes, perfectly reasonable.
That is, as long as you use reasonable numbers and statistics combined with real knowledge of chemistry and physics, instead of creationist pseudoscience fucktarding.
So the odds of chemical evolution are so likely there is no other plausible explanation for the origin of life then
The problem is with your misunderstanding of what "impossible" and "possible" mean.
"Possible" does not mean"likely".
Either way, this is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion, since you are assuming only a single trial instead of the multiple trillions of trillions that actually would have occurred -- what, you seriously didn't think that in a sizeable portion of the billion cubic kilometres of water on our planet, containing quadrillions more particles than there are stars in the observable universe, receiving hundreds of Watts of energy on every square metre, only one reaction would ever happen? -- and that this happened in one instant as opposed to the several dozen million years it obviously did.
Wrong? Are you sure? Because I bought a lottery ticket today. If I win, you are right.
Ah yes, the classic false experiment: tie the likelihood of two independent events by a comparison, then equate the occurrence of one to the occurrence of the other.
Unfortunately, reality doesn't work like that. Your winning the lottery does not bear any relation whatsoever to chemical evolution. Just as your criticism bears no relation to the actual theory of evolution or any hypotheses of abiogenesis.
™ Version 4.2
