ad hominem
Nope. Didn't attack the guy. I attacked his line of reasoning. All fair game.
By the way MeanMrMustard, what he's saying: In the primordial soup would have to be many atoms and molecules that would have to be combined to start off life. Although millions of combinations being possible, only one combination would sustain life, e.g., the naturally occurring D-ribose sugar in DNA, RNA and ATP (see Wikipedia). What's the chance of that? But I'm afraid, only an experienced chemist would be able to work this out. So ask for a (chemist) friend.I know what he's saying. He frames it all at the start with the " attributes of life". Its then used to do the same trick you've tried above: namely, there was a "soup" and then POOF! - fully formed DNA, RNA, ATP in cells. No intermediates, no process. No other possibilites. And then you coyfully ask "What's the chance of that?" It really sound like deception mixed with the old "irreducibly complex" argument.
This reminds me of the an elder I once talked to about evolution, and the proof needed for him to accept it. His answer was as soon as 'we have an example of a monkey giving birth to a human', then he would be willing to belive it. Didn't matter that nobody was claiming that should ever happen, and it would pretty much disprove evolution of it did.
You are making the same logical mistakes...