Probability of Life Arising Calculations

Hi mike. I want to start by saying I appreciate your attitude - you're one of the rare breed who, in spite of holding contrary opinions, is willing to sort of withhold final judgement pending additional information. I.e., a very reasonable and non-dogmatic stance. Keep it up.I would, however, like to address your oft-repeated contention concerning "big number" probabilities telling against abiogenesis. There are two fundamental flaws in creationist probability calculations. In the first place, it is a very basic rule of statistical probability that more accurate your initial conditions, the more accurate will be your final probability calculation. The obverse is also true - the less you know about the initial conditions, the less accurate will be your calculation. With abiogenesis, no one has the first clue what the actual initial conditions were - neither creo nor evo. Therefore, by definition, any abiogenesis probability calculation is going to be wrong from the git-go. IOW, creationist big-number probabilities are no more accurate than pulling random numbers out of thin air.The second major flaw is a whopping unstated assumption that life-as-we-know-it (LAWKI) is the only possible outcome. Since life has a history - even if you limit the change to "variation within a kind" - LAWKI as it exists today is constrained by its history whether you're talking about a cellular process, an organ, or an entire organism. An evo would describe LAWKI as being contingent on its evolutionary trajectory. However, even without buying in to the idea of evolution, it should be clear that living organisms are shaped and molded by their environments. Since most environments are constantly changing, the requirements for life are ALSO constantly changing AND there are multiple possible responses to every change. Even running the same "program" over could (and probably would) yield a different result. Trying to develop a probability bound without knowing exactly what environmental factors may impact the organism over its history AND without knowing every single possible reaction to the factors, is one of the most futile exercises I can imagine.In short, creo "big number" probabilities are spurious at best. They're wrong at both the beginning assumptions and the end state assumption. Classic "lies, damn lies, and statistics."