Once that is done, you are essentially left with the claim that order can’t increase in a closed system (e.g., the whole watch or solar system model versus life metaphor). This is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. That law, however, only applies in a closed system. Since the Earth is not a closed system, but is constantly bathed in powerful light energy from the Sun, the 2nd Law does not apply. And indeed, it’s commonsensical that life would not exist without the Sun.
So you have proven little, except that religious fundamentalism is a continuing embarrassment to thinking conservatives.
No, the argument is much deeper than that. I am not just speaking of a laboratory setting, I am speaking of almost any setting at all. It is the question of millions of monkeys trying to write a new Shakesperian play. Give them trillions of years, they still will not write anything like that.
But if a self-replicating cell of a simpler type can exist (perhaps a lipid membrane enclosing a few protein or RNA fragments, 1/1000 the complexity of the simplest currently feasible cell, and the “laboratory,” instead of ~1 cubic meter is instead the world’s oceans (1,370,000,000 cubic kilometers, or 1,370,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters), and the “experiment,” instead of taking, say, 10 years, takes 4,000,000,000 years, then the process becomes 5.48E+29 (548,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) times more likely to produce life.
Well, you have several problems with the statement above. The biggest is that you cannot have a living organism which is that simple. Let's look at some of the absolute essentials:
1. you need a system for replication, this is not so easy as it sounds. Viri have to 'borrow' the replicating system of true living things.
2. you need an excretory system - to dispose of waste.
3. you need a nutrition system - and this is where it really gets to be impossible. For nourishing a living thing you need either to produce your own nourishment as plants do or eat other living things as animals do. Problem with the first life is that you do not have any other creatures to eat so you have to make your own. This requires photosynthesis or chemosynthesis. Either one is a very complex process requiring many genes some of which are quite complex.
In fact the number of DNA base pairs I gave is more favorable than most scientists would postulate. The smallest living things have some 1,000,000 DNA base pairs and some 600 genes. Very few scientists would believe that anything even a quarter that size would have the capability of replicating and providing its own nourishment system. So as far as science goes, your proposition is impossible.
Since my calculator cannot display all of the numbers involved I must use logs. First 4250000 is not a small number, in terms of 10 it is 10150514.9978 . Consequently even if the odds were increased 5.48E29, ----no let us say 5.48E29 times a billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, times more (or 5.48E74) the odds would be ~1 in 10150440
Since this is beyond comprehension if we use instead 4^250 as the beginning odds, the final number becomes a more reasonable looking 1 in 5.97334E+75, that is including all of the adjustments increasing your odds. Now how does this relate to anything we can conceive? Well given a 20 billion year old universe(fudging in your favor) with 366 days per year(again fudging in your favor), 24 hours per day (no fudging), 60 minutes per hour(again no fudging) and 60 seconds per minute(straight as an arrow) we can calculate that there have been 6.32448E+17 seconds since the beginning of the universe. Hmmm. If we allowed your total scenario to occur every second since the beginning of the universe we cannot cover all of the possibilities for even a chain of 250. Well how about doing the process every picosecond? That would make the iterations 6.32448E+29, still far short of the 5.97334E+75 combinations remaining.
Amen to that, Bro. Amen to that!
Not to make too fine a point on your dazzling argument, but if my aunt woulda had balls, perhaps she woulda been my uncle. I suppose you have faith that such a simpler organism existed in the past and was easier to spontaneously generate than a more complex one?
While I can make the argument that the sun, earth, and the rest of the universe are themselves closed systems in that their supplies of energy are limited to the amount of fuel they have left to burn, did you ever ask youself the following question:
Given the rate of solar burn currently observed, how far back can one go in time before the amount of fuel that the sun has to consume makes the sun so large that the earth itself is uninhabitable by even the heartiest of spore forming creatures?
The most generous projections allow for no more than 100,000 years, and more likely 10,000 years.
Where the earth's magnetic moment decay is also a rate which can and has been determined, according to current rates of decay earth's uninhabitability falls on this side of 50,000 years.
Quite simply, if you haven't got the time, you haven't got a "theory."
As to your argument on chance assembly of simplest of life forms (which you do admit is unlikely) ask youself the probability that the essential oxygen transporting protein Cytochrome C (104 amino acid primary structure, never mind secondary) could spontaneously come into being. That figure is a chance of 1 in 20 to the 104th power. Now give it a reason to come into being in what evolutionists speculate earlier on was an anaerobic primordial soup.