Since there seems to be an enormous amount of ignorance concerning the difference between a theory and law, I would suggest the following link:
http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/office/ganderson/es10/lectures/lecture01/lecture01.html
The automobile example I used could just as well have been nuts and bolts (much simpler) or stainless steel (simpler yet). The fact that life does reproduce only strengthens the argument for a designer. DNA alone and supposedly spontaneously assembled is insufficient for reproduction. The probability of random creation of DNA, as riduculously high as it is, becomes ridiculously higher when you start to add the other materials required for reproduction.
Automobiles don't reproduce, but an alloy as simple as stainless steel should be found in great abundance since the probability for spontaneous assembly is much less than that for all the materials required for reproducible life (DNA, transcriptase, etc.). Considering the time line required for evolution, there should be equally enormous amounts of the precursors for life, but there isn't. The automobile example only suggests an examination of your own thinking, which automatically accepts a designer in one case but not the other.
The ignorance is yours and the link is wrong about the definition of theory-to-Law progression (perhaps dumbed down to the point to stupidity might be a better description). In today's world you can probably find any idea expressed on the net but that doesn't make it correct.
> The probability of random creation of DNA, as riduculously high as it is,
The likelihood of DNA forming in conditions of those of the early Earth are not only better than 100%, it's very likely to have occured countless times.
Those who have told you that the chances of DNA forming naturally are "one chance in 10Ebajillion" are liars.
> but an alloy as simple as stainless steel should be found in great abundance since the probability for spontaneous assembly is much less than that for all the materials required for reproducible life (DNA, transcriptase, etc.).
No, it's not.
> Considering the time line required for evolution, there should be equally enormous amounts of the precursors for life, but there isn't.
You are incorrect. An examination of the universe shows that the precursors of life are everywhere in great abundance. Oceans of the stuff appear to be on Titan. The only reason why "primordial oooze" or whatever you might want to call it is not found naturally on Earth is because life already used it all up.