Bullshit! DNA per se is not alive but just a very large double-helix polymer.
I have not seen your calculation but I'm convinced the approach is flawed from the very beginning. And in contrary to subjective 'believing' is this assumption based on experimental evidence and objective logic, IMHO still the best ways to prove a theory.
First, it is hardly possible to perform such a calculation because many variables are not all known. Second, there were numerous experiments published during the last decades that showed succesfully that under the conditions of the very early Earth it was indeed possible that small molecules are formed, including amino acids, simple lipids, nucleic acids and sugars. Look up Miller & Urey! And this includes simple dipeptides, too. If this impressive evidence proves something than its that your calculation must be wrong.
You summarized in short and very eloquently what humans are not able to comprehend for hundreds of years, that is: This universe, our planet and the life on it can not be explained in simple terms. This is really nothing personal, please don't me wrong here, but only because you are not capable of comprehending how e.g. life evolved - than this means nothing. I have a vague idea but in the end I can not imagine it, too. The human mind, at least of the vast majority of our specimen, is simply not able to grasp complex constructs like the creation of life, the dimensions of our universe or what "time" means (in physical terms), just to cite some of the main riddles of modern times. To assume that - therefore - some kind of intelligent design must have been evolved is nothing else than to surrender to the mind-baffling complexity of nature/the universe/call it as you like.
Woooooow... now that is some heavy stuff. One of the most common misconceptions (usually of religious people) is to sort atheism into the multitude of other religions. This is so entirely wrong, it simply defies description. Atheism is not just another religion on its own, but the absence resp. denial of religion!!! Thus, it represents the counterpart to all other religions, and does not dwell amongst their ranks.
It is neither delusional nor uneducated to deny the existence of any supernatural being, may it be elves, fairies, ghosts or Mr. God himself. It is rather the thoughtful choice pro science and sanity, and contra biased dogmas, supernatural explanations of all kinds and simply unprovable rubbish.
The Bible can be taken at most, very much like the Thora, the Koran or any other 'holy' book or writing, as an abstract code of ethics and moral beliefs (many of them highly questionable and/or obsolete), interspersed with some historical details. Personally, I consider it nothing else than a book of fairytales for folks whos can not stand the complexity of this universe resp. the part which science has discovered to date. Yes: SCIENCE! The 'church' of atheists like me.
Come on, please don't try to preach to same bullshit-elitism to us like all major religions. How can every religion seriously try make people believe that all other believes must be wrong to some extend, and that there's only one truth?! Why is the book of Mormon flawed but the Bible is not? Both were created by men, written by men and are propagated by men. How come that one can claim the ultimate truth when there is no objective evidence for either belief? Literally every holy book is interlaced with political, ethnical (sometimes even racist) and moral standards of the times when it was written. If I had to decide for any of these writings, I surely preferred a more modern piece and not one that propagates the dealth penalty for adultery or homosexuality or for believing in another religion, cruel punishments like stoning; or that forbids the use of condoms and contraceptives despite >7 billion humans on this planet, ca. 33 millions of them bearing HIV. WTF?!
