Just to correct a few things, as if you seek to correct someone Skaloop, then equally so, your own misconceptions of what you are correcting need to be corrected.
I hope you understand.
The response where you argue against a strawman version of the Big Bang? (The BB was not a thermonuclear reaction of Hydrogen. There was no Hydrogen. There was no matter; it was all energy.
One, Big Bang Model that is used, deals with matter and antimatter forming electrons, neutrons, protons, and positrons, and some other trons I do not remember. When this happened, the aspects of the atoms formed into the simplest atom, which would be Hydrogen, then theory goes on to say that the Hydrogen then formed into collected "balls" of mass, which then some how exploded into stars, and it goes on to explain how the reaction within the "early" stars, acted like alchemy and made the rest of the solid matter in the universe.
That was the Theory I believe he was referring to, when he explained that Hydrogen, would no collect, but spread apart and expand to fill the voids of space. Stars would not form this way.
Also, at the time, the universe was not billions of light-years across.
We can not validate that claim, as it was a void, that very well may have been thousands of light years across, as it stands today, we have no idea how big the "Universe is" we have only a rough idea of how far the matter that is in the universe is spread out. How much father it can go, we have no way to gauge.
The BB was not an explosion into existing space, but an expansion of space itself. Hydrogen did not need to be pulled in from all reaches of the universe.)
It was as best we can figure a reaction in a void. IE: an Explosion IN a Void, that in effect, "filled the void with matter" as such, we truly have no other way to look at it.
As for your question about law of physics that allows for "something from nothing," that would fall under quantum theory.
Even in Quantom Theory, There has to be something, IE: There is an aspect that Photons can combine with molecular matter, and add weight to it, but, the photon needs to be provided. IE: The concept that matter can be converted to energy, and also that energy can be converted to matter, may be true, but still something has to be provided. You can not have a void, and then have something appear in that void with out some form of provision.
From there, you jump straight into the PRATT about the the so-called huge improbability of life arising.
It's not really pratt, as the points that are raised by these questions, have never been truly addressed, only side stepped, IE: Well maybe it did not start with amino acids. This, it is not the improbability that is Pratt, but the means and back stepping down to try and look at the situation from another angle that does not make such improbability possible.
IE: It was simple polymers, not amino acids, this step was taken, because of the vast improblity of Amino Acids being able to make life. However, we have no validity that Simple Polymers, have a "better chance" we just assume that they do, as we have not gotten truly past the first step.
Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with evolution.
as Darwin proposed it, your right.
As for the calculation of odds, yes, if it were random chance it would be very unlikely. But chemistry is not random chance. And nobody suggests that things jumped right up to complex amino acids. The process would certainly begin with simpler molecules.
yes, but does that increase the probity, or is that simply a "white wash answer" as opposed to just admitting "we have no idea".
In this front, Chemestry may not be random, but the enviroment by which the reaction was to take place, and cotrol of what chemicals were added to mix, in what volumes, and out side influnces were added, are random. As such, it is a random event.
Truly not much different then say, going to a K-Mart, and running though the store, grabbing things with a blind fold on, and expecting to leave with everything you wanted, in the right amounts you wanted them in.
To some extent, it is controlled, and to some extent, it is random. You had things you needed, in specific amounts, and these things, where in the K-mart, However, the control by which the things were provided, was random, as such, getting what is needed, or even wanted, in the amount wanted, is still a random factor.
You finish off by saying that "mathematics and probability would seem to rule out Darwin's theory." But in fact, you have not addressed Darwin's theory at all. You've addressed the theories regarding the Big Bang and abiogenesis, and even then you've not actually addressed the theories, but rather misinterpreted versions thereof.
Not really, it has been a somewhat accurate representation of one of the many Big Bang models used, maybe not the one you subscribe to, if you accept any of them, however, it is a model that has been accepted, even aired on the discovery channel.
I am sure there are "other" models, but, when it comes to science, and having this many models, is not a good thing, not a good thing at all.
As for Abiogenesis, The model he used, was the model that was proposed, regarding the existence of protocells, there are other models, but, that one had created the most stir.
And many of the other models, have provide no where near the result of the Protocell model, so they can for the most part, at this time be ignored , until they can produce results beyond "well, we think it could happen, we just have no idea how".
So, in the end, yes, he was using viable Theories, that have been accepted, and put down for peer review, and have been found worthy or respect in the scientific community, and not only that, have provided some surprising results, with the only problem being that they are just so vastly improbable to be given consideration as possible. I for one can not deny the results, they are amazing. They are just not feasible.
God Bless
Key