• Home
  • About
    • About white.org.nz
    • About Christian Apologetics
  • Evidences
    • In the Beginning
    • Fine-Tuning of the Universe
    • Math Proves God?
    • The Impossible Odds of Life by Chance
    • Does “Free will” Exist?
    • IF EVERYONE AGREED THAT GENOCIDE WAS GOOD
    • 6 Historical Facts that Prove the Resurrection of Jesus
  • Evolution
    • 3 Fatal Flaws that Destroies Evolution
    • Problems with Weasel Program
    • Yes! Creationists Do accept “microevolution”
    • Lenski’s E-coli experiment
  • Gospel
    • The Principle of the Cross & Resurrection
WHere Is The Evidence?WHere Is The Evidence?
  • Home
  • About
    • About white.org.nz
    • About Christian Apologetics
    • The Most Fundamental question
  • Evidences
    • In the Beginning
    • How can we understand the Fine-Tuning of the Universe?
    • The universe was already doing the maths before we arriv
    • Are We Living in a Simulated Universe?
    • Beyond Chance: The Origin of Life
    • Adam and Eve Discovered by Science
    • Has Neuroscience Really Executed “Free Will”?
    • Objective Morality points to God
    • 6 Historical Facts that Prove the Resurrection of Jesus
  • Evolution
    • Why Evolution cannot be true
    • Five Problems with Weasel Program
    • Yes! Creationists Do accept “microevolution”
    • Lenski’s E-Coli & Evolution
  • Gospel
    • The Principle of the Cross & Resurrection
    • “Cut off your hand if it sins!”
    • I Prayed with All my heart – And My Parents still got divorced
    • Can Christians Drink Alcohol?

The Impossible Odds of Life by Chance: Essential

Ten Trillion Years: Is There Enough Time for Life to Evolve by Chance?
WITE

Scientific evidence · Quick read

Biology · Origin of life

Ten trillion years — is that enough?

Scientists say it is plenty of time for life to evolve by chance. Is it really?

Quick read6 minwhite.org.nz

Life against the scale of the universe

When NASA announced the discovery of seven Earth-like planets just 39 light-years away, one astronomy professor added: “TRAPPIST-1’s lifespan is expected to reach ten trillion years. That is a long enough time for life to evolve.” For us — who live, at most, around a hundred years — ten trillion is genuinely long. But is it long enough for life to arise on its own? That is an entirely different question.

01

Will shaking the box build a smartphone?

The analogy, stated plainly

Soil forming in nature does not mean an apartment building can assemble itself out of nothing. Take every part needed to build a smartphone, drop them into a container, and shake — no matter how long, the parts will not assemble themselves into a working phone.

Spark-discharge apparatus of the kind Stanley Miller used in 1953
Miller’s 1953 apparatus. Look at what it produced: amino acids — the parts, not the machine.

In 1953, Stanley Miller filled a glass tube with methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapour and ran an electric current through it. Amino acids appeared. The result spread fast, and many people walked away from church, persuaded that life — like everything else — could simply assemble itself.

Two things happened afterward, though. First, geologists realised the early Earth’s atmosphere was not what Miller had assumed. Second — and this is the bigger point — making amino acids and making life are not the same thing at all.

So what would the odds actually be of amino acids coming together to form a living organism? Let us walk through it step by step.

02

The odds of just one protein

Life requires proteins. An average protein is built from 300 to 400 amino acids — but they cannot just be strung together randomly. The sequence has to be just right for the protein to fold into something functional.

Molecular biologist Douglas Axe calculated the probability that a 150-amino-acid sequence would fold into a working protein at 1 in 1077. And that is not the end of it. Every amino acid has to be joined by a peptide bond (about a 50% chance per bond) and every one has to be the L-form rather than the D-form (also 50%). Multiply it all together:

1 in 1077 The sequence folds into a working shape
1 in 1045 149 peptide bonds in a row
1 in 1045 150 residues all left-handed

Odds of a single functional protein arising by chance

1 in 10167

That is 1 followed by 167 zeros. The number of attempts required is far greater than the total number of atoms in the entire observable universe.

And that is just one protein — not a living organism. Even ten trillion years is not enough time for one protein to form by chance. To produce a single protein within that span, roughly 10147 attempts would have to occur every second.

03

But one protein isn’t enough

Mitochondrion and DNA inside a living cell
Inside the simplest cell: machinery that has to be present all at once, or nothing runs.

In 2016, J. Craig Venter’s team unveiled the simplest possible synthetic cell, Syn 3.0. It contains 473 genes. The team had originally expected that 256 genes would be enough — but after decades of work, they could not reduce the count below 473.

Even more striking: roughly 150 of those genes are essential for survival, but no one yet knows what they do.

We have shown how complex even the simplest life forms are. And these discoveries have humbled us.J. Craig Venter

The probability of all 473 proteins forming together by chance works out to roughly 1 in 1078,991. That is a number that simply cannot occur within the entire history of the universe.

04

The atheists who changed their minds

The math has been startling enough that several prominent thinkers — having done the calculations themselves — moved from atheism toward belief in a Creator.

Three careers reversed by their authors’ own calculations
WhoFieldWhat changed
Sir Fred Hoyle Astronomy One of the leading atheists of his generation. After calculating the probability of life emerging by chance at 1 in 1040,000, he became a theist.
Antony Flew Philosophy The defining atheist philosopher of the twentieth century — an idol to Richard Dawkins. In 2004 he announced his belief in a Creator.
Dean Kenyon Biochemistry A pioneer of chemical-evolution research in the 1970s. As he came to grasp the complexity of life, he abandoned his earlier work and became a creationist.
Arguments are not settled by who holds them — but a position abandoned by its own defenders is worth recording.

05

What do evolutionists actually say?

The honest ones admit they do not know. Even Richard Dawkins has said in an interview, “Nobody knows how the first living matter came into existence.” But they refuse to acknowledge a Creator on the grounds of the “God of the gaps” objection — that not knowing is not a licence to invoke God.

Some have gone further and proposed an infinite multiverse: if there are unlimited universes, then any improbable event must occur somewhere. The trouble is — we have never observed a multiverse, and we cannot. They are treating it as fact in order to rescue chance.

The evolutionary biologist Michael Ruse put it more bluntly than most. After conceding that the origin of life is “desperately difficult,” he closed a debate with these words:

I would rather be a fool than surrender to the Bible.Michael Ruse

There it is. The real motive on the table. They are not searching for truth — they simply do not want to surrender before God.

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” Romans 1:20 · NIV

To look with one’s own eyes at how intricately even the simplest life is designed — and then to deny the obvious conclusion of that observation — is, the Bible says, the work of those who “claimed to be wise” and “became fools.”

The complexity that science keeps unveiling, the more it advances, points clearly to one conclusion. The God who made this world is alive. He made everything for us — and He made us.

The full case, with all the math

Eugene Koonin’s multiverse paper, James Tour’s chemical critique, Stephen Meyer’s information argument, Seth Lloyd’s hard ceiling on what the universe can compute, and the objections answered in full.

Read the deep dive

Disagree with this?

An objection to this article, a source you want checked, or a question about faith — send it over. It will be read, and answered.

Write to us co**********@***il.com

You also might be interested in

“Cut off your hand if it sins!”

“Cut off your hand if it sins!”

Apr 21, 2026

Did Jesus Really Mean It? — “Cut Off Your Hand[...]

The Pharisees Were the Good Guys

The Pharisees Were the Good Guys

Aug 5, 2026

The Gospel of the Cross The Pharisees Were the Good[...]

The Principle of the Cross & Resurrection

The Principle of the Cross & Resurrection

Mar 19, 2026

The Principle of the Cross and Resurrection | WHere Is[...]

Recent Posts

  • Can Something come from nothing?
  • Origin of Life by chance: Ten trillion years is not enough
  • The universe perfectly calibrated
  • Does mathematics point to a Creator?
  • Eighteen centuries of equations that arrived early

Tag Cloud

Abraham Archaeology Bible Big Bang Chirst Christian Creation Creator Darwinian Evolution E-coli Easter Elon Musk Empty Tomb Evolution fine tuning Genesis Genesis 23 God History Hitties Inflation In the beginning Jesus Junk DNA Kalam Cosmology LTEE Macroevolution math Micro-evolution Multi-verse multiverse Physics Resurrection Richard Dawkins Richard Lenski scientific evidence Simulation Universe Weasel Program William Lane Craig

© 2026 — white.org.nz — Where Is The Evidence?