@Leadfoot,
When you say "youve been there", you seem to hve been very selctive in what you retained?
I like your take on time. (13.(+) Billion years is not enough time? How about using a bit of math, by multiplying secons times the number of nucleii affected )
Forget the entire known universe. The law of Conservation of mass and energy almost provide all the prosaic physics in coming up with universes.
Remember , the earth was only consolidated about 4.5(+) B years ago and the first Billion years it was being bombarded pretty much constantly . When the "Heavy Bombardment" period ended life shortly began. Theres an almost time dependency because of those two substances , C and HOH.
Everything we know about chirality and epitaxis weve lerned through geochemistry.W and L Bragg were more a practicing geo chemists when they were able to analyze crystalline shapes that are common in everything from the Kuypher Belt to earth (and by xtension probablt verything in the Solar system.
Afetr my first grad degree I began work in mineral ionic chirality and epitaxis to best develop substances with natural twits and layers . We took lessons from nature ( Hydroxy Fe/Ti carbonates naturally form heices, as do things like ilmentite, boulangerite, fibrous minerals etc.
All the early archea found in the "Banded Iron Formations" which are close to deposits evidencing first life are almost ALL associated with hiral structures (It obviously predates anything like RNA and DNA (because we dont see any specific crystals that RNA ad DNA form.
I think really that you should still rad further in your adventures of larning. Usually when I suggested something to read or consider (Like Judge Jones decision), you have always dismissed that you didnt need that information. So it appars that your recent studies have been limited to to an ID conclusion for which you have collected some collateral "evidence". You do know what they say about correlation and causation. Its a dangerous slope of learning .
WHile you have apparently spent time reading about DNA as an indicator of something other than ntural means of causation, you seem to either deny or ignore the evidence (like the real association of evolution with environment and edaphic factores, or the strong evidence of how L/D amino acis wre provided to our world or how they were formed by the (yes) relly prosaic rules of chemistry that vidence themselves all over the solar system. (As far as weve been able to sample thus far).
A theory has all the evidence support and none refutes. Or "The only way to prove something is to not disprove it)
You seem to be stuck in the grooves of "Specified Information" (whether you recognize it or not.)