Quote Originally Posted by Pahu78
d. ??The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.? Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

??Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one part in 10^40,000 must be judged superior to random shuffling [of evolution]. The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40,000 of being the correct explanation of the many curious facts discussed in preceding chapters. Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.? Ibid., p. 130.

After explaining the above to a scientific symposium, Hoyle said that evolution was comparable with the chance that ??a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.? Fred Hoyle, ??Hoyle on Evolution,? Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.
I think this argument is enough to prove that life could NOT appear by itself just by chance.

Even if we suppose that all life evolved from a single virus, which is way simpler than the simplest cell, still the probability of it being formed by pure chance is still way too small.

The smallest known virus has like 3000 DNA-units, and so the chance of it appearing by chance is 1 in 4^3000 or 1 in 10^1800, which is still an awesomely small probability, which can be considered null for all the practical purposes.

As it is said above:

"such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident."

Anyway... i wonder what kind of absurd arguments the hard-headed evolutionists would use to reply this...