This sentence, aside from being grammatically incorrect, seeks to imply that the hand of man, or the use of a complex machine somehow taints a truly random or “chance” happening. I see no mention of cellular biology or ionic bonds in the above statement do you? I thought not.
Mentioning cellular processes in the light of defending random chance events is the argument of an evolutionist.
If your point was, that you weren't defending evolution and that was the reason you didn't mention cellular biology or ionic bonds, then your sentence structure was certainly not clear at all on that, your previous posts were single sentences, then followed with the mentioning of the defense of random chances that I clearly said were different because of their human controls.
It was you who used the terms of cellular biology and such, and without any expansion on your implied meaning.
Based on what you previously posted on this thread, there was no way I could envision anything other than a defense of evolution from your own posted statements.
It is only NOW, that you started to expand on what you meant that it MIGHT be implied in your statements.
And I am still fourty-five. :)