You're changing the subject. No one has any greater chance of winning the powerball than anyone else, so for example those who win can't pass their "secrets" to their children, and get them to win as well; not so with life. Those that are stronger, faster, more perceptive, more clever, etc. have a significant survival advantage over others, and they therefore have a signficantly higher chance of reproducing, that is, passing those traits along to their offspring. The next generation, in turn starts from the point of excellence given to them by their parents (who made it long enough to reproduce). The idea that "random chance" leads to evolution is misleading, because although there is some randomness in mutations and in the happenings that can kill or save a given individual, there are extremely non-random pressures that greatly shape the generational landscape. For example, a gazelle that is blind can't see the best places to graze, and can't see an approaching lion - so it is sure to die early. This amounts to enormous pressure to be able to see.
The same argument can be applied at the molecular level to self-replicating molecules. The fact that scientists in 50 or 100 years haven't been able to duplicate the emergence of DNA doesn't disprove the possibility that it can occur given the millions of cubic miles of oceans, and billions of years of terrestrial existence. (Time isn't their only "god" as you put it, the vastness of the oceans is equally incomprehisibly gigantic and can also afford the opportunity for extremely unlikely events.)
Let me ask you this: suppose scientists were able to do so: would you abandon your faith?
Evolutionists who studiously pretend that the question of how life evolved is totally disconnected from the question of how life began began would be like studying the design of a two story building while forbidding any discussion of the first story. It just is silly.
It is dodging the question to pretend that DNA spontaneously appeared when there is not enough time in the entire universe for that molecule to have done so by a random event, an event so improbable it could be insured by purchasing a PowerBall ticket.
If there in Designer, or sentient outside force, that caused DNA to appear, then what are we left with for the "appearance" of the very first complete DNA? We are left with speculating how it could have appeared by random chance.
At this very moment, a group at MIT is attempting to construct a bacterium by assembling its constituent chemical parts. The Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center is described as having primary long-term goal to "make it easier to design and build useful organisms."
see: MIT Press release, New center to focus on synthetic biology, August 3, 2006
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/synthetic.html
and: Life, Reinvented by Oliver Morton, Wired, January 2005
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.01/mit.html
As part of the quest to synthesize life, research was directed in an attempt to find how few genes it took for a successful bacterium. The answer? 182. Now, I don't think this is quite right because this bacterium is symbiotic, and therefore cannot live without its host. But I'll not complain too loudly on this minor point.
see: The World's Smallest Genome Just Got Smaller, by Joe Palca, NPR News
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6256036
Life is either the result of random events or a deliberate design. Work of this type is going on elsewhere in research facilities around the world. This research will be earth shaking to world views no matter what the result. Sadly, it will not be symmetrical.
If science is able to create a living, functioning, bacterium, they will say to creationists: see, you were wrong, we were right. If science is somehow unable to get the bacterium to work, they will never say they were wrong. They will only say they need more time to make it work.
To a person who believes that an outside, sentient, power created life as a deliberate act, how will they react if science is successful? Some will give up that belief. Others will point to the highly improbable nature of the event occurring outside of the determined and ideal lab setting for DNA to spontaneously appear. They will point to other issues as well: to the question of matter and energy, to the fact that radioactivity proves there was no past eternity for matter. And thus, the gulf of worldviews will continue.
I would also ask evolutionists to consider the implications of an impasse. What happens if they assemble their target bacterium in every way that should be correct and perfect, and yet it refuses to function? Time passes. Theories abound. Teams spend countless nights and weekends trying to make it work. Yet nothing happens. It is still a pile of atoms and molecules. There are hints in the Bible that life is really more than just physicality. What if that was really true and that life can only come from life? Would such a factor eventually cause evolutionists to reconsider their position? Some would. Many would not.
Given the above, one thing is clear: this experiment to synthesize life is proceeding. The clash of worldviews will occur. It is only a matter of time.