You are using a computer program to assemble a particular RNA molecule by random chance. Ignoring any of the physics and chemistry that put such a molecule together. The analogy to an expensive watch coming together by virtue of chance and gravity is not applicable.
I suppose you reject the claim "Scientists have created life in a lab" too, right? Because it goes against the "virtue" of the physics and chemistry of how such "life" (if it can even be called that) could come into existence?
Or is that a special case where you ignore the fact that such "life" could not survive in the environment that it was "created" in?
The point of the program
@Bob Enyart came up with, and which Clete has now iterated upon, is that even if you were to grant that such "life-creating circumstances" were possible, the chances of life arising from such circumstances are so low as to be VIRTUALLY ZERO! Well within rounding error of zero.
It is hard, strong evidence against life cominig about by "random chance."
In addition, I suspect from hanging around here for a bit, you are a Biblical literalist and do not accept the age of the earth in billions of years.
Reminder that this is a mainline Christian board. Of course most of the members here reject "billions of years."
I am not a Biblical literalist and have no issue with an earth billions of years old.
All well and good.... until you look at the evidence, like what is demonstrated by Clete's program.
I believe the chance of life evolving was 100%--'cause here we are.
That's called "begging the question."
It's a fallacy for a reason.
It would be like saying, "I believe the chance the computer I'm typing on came about by random chance is 100%--'cause here I am typing on it!"
