Logical inference to what was, shows us that all complex systems were created by an intelligent mind.
What definition of "complexity" are you using? Because I'm
pretty damned sure that the definition used by probability is about the pure convolution of the thing completely irrespective of usefulness. The most "complex" book is the densest and hardest to describe mass of pure randomness, not an intricate treatise, because the treatise has patterns that make it
more likely. The most "complex" physical systems are turbulences larger than the Sun.
It was at one point a hypothesis, but the evidence gathered has continually proven that it is a flawed hypothesis which does not fit the data.
No, it's just proven an increasing pain in the ass to actually
get numbers because as it turns out
we don't know how the shit we have works. Since we don't know how the present operates, we cannot actually construct a meaningful hypothesis of how it came to be. This is exceedingly basic "we don't know", and you just
fucking can't stand ever doing anything but inserting "therefor God", despite never having any
positive evidence in favor of God, just very large improbabilities of the mainstream alternatives that don't
satisfy you.
You literally argue "if you do not have a
perfect intermediate example, you are wrong":
An actual example of something that is about a quarter of the way between inanimate and living.
Do
you have any meaningful definition of what this would look like? Do
you actually have any concept of what the in-between would indicate? Do
you actually have a fucking clue what the steps along the way would be? Because the big issue with abiogenesis that causes you to reject it is that
nobody in the sciences does,
when science never claimed that kind of completeness to begin with.
You insist that because there is such a gap
right now, there
absolutely must be God in there,
without any positive proof of that hypothesis. Your "proof" has
always been just screaming that science is wrong because it's
unlikely or has
something missing, not any
hard disproof that it
cannot be right. But the science looks at a gap, and
works on filling it. Just because we don't know
now, does not mean we
cannot know,
that's the whole point of science.
If you really want to talk probability, "omniscience" requires indescribably infinite components, owing to the proofs for cardinalities beyond countable infinities, and even the trivial uncountables like the real numbers. Any time there is a property included in that that is not certain, the probability goes down, and there are
indescribably many properties to become improbable. And that's
one part that must be accepted axiomatically, because it literally cannot be proven positively.
