Abiogenesis Is Possible

This will be short. When Abiogenesis is presented to me as a theory, I have nothing against it. What I'm against is the possibility of the theory to manifest itself in real life driven only by the laws of nature. The pro argument presented in round 2 was more explaining what Abiogenesis is than explaining the odds of it happenning theoretically. Supporting the odds was only presented in the Miller-Urey experiment. However, it only proves the spontaneous generation of amino acids from basic molecules. But what are amino acids? They are only the building blocks of life. Achieving them is less than 1/10000 of achieving the first living cell. The Miller-Urey experiment did not report any traces of any kind of protein. That fact is considered to be against the odds of Abiogenesis. In a significant amount of time (Two weeks & more), in almost ideal circumstances (right temperature and the presence of sparks), and with having the right ingrediants, no proteins were produced at all. Bare with me for a minute:Let's assume the Miller-Urey experiment, in 13 days, produced only 0.01 grams of amino acids = 0.01x6.023E23/75(molecular weight of glycine)= 8E19 molecule. And let's assume it was given a period of one day (the last day of the two week experiment) to try and produce proteins (specifically our small 32 long protein). The total number of events will be equal to 1 day in nanoseconds multiplied by the number of amino acid molecules (8E19), divided by 32 = 8E13 * 8E19 / 32 = 2E32 event (simultaneous and continuing for a whole day). From my argument in round 2, I concluded the probability of producing a functional protein from a set of 32 amino acids to be 1.08E-19. But we have a lot more events. This should lead to protein production with an estimated amount of 2E32 * 1.08E-19 = 2.16E13 protein molecules!!!Do you know what this means? It means that I, Moze, a creationist, predict (through my generous theoretical calculations) that the Miller-Urey experiment will produce 2.16E13 protein molecules in one day. However, we all know that it didn't produce one single protein molecule. This means that my original calculations were far more generous than I would have ever imagined.Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to defend my math from your refute (I will defend it later in round 4). All I'm trying to do here is to refute the fact that the Miller-Urey experiment supports Abiogenesis's possibility. In fact, I'm doing more than that. I'm using the experiment, that is perceived to support Abiogenesis, against Abiogenesis. So it's those who believe in Abiogenesis should be avoiding the Miller-Urey experiment, NOT creationists!!The rest of the argument was just telling a story without proof. To me, the science of Abiogenesis is just the science of reverse engineering the living cell; Break it down and draw a flow chart, then repeat the process over and over until you reach the building blocks of life leaving a large flow chart behind. Now what do you do with this flow chart? You simply flip it and start presenting from the building blocks moving up the chart to reach the cell. Again, it was just a story without any calculations of the odds of it happenning, which makes it useless.Now I know you've provided your version of calculations in round 3. But I asked if I can refute it here and you preferred not to. So I'm only judging your round 2 argument as if I didn't see round 3. In round 4, I will speak of your math.