The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[WesOlsen]

My scientific proof that RNA cannot spontaneously exist is: spontaneous existence of RNA has never been scientifically proven. What is supposed to make science so reliable and considered "fact" is that it is built upon the scientific method: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." What is concerning is that modern day science seems to be accepting things that aren't scientific rather than modifying it's hypotheses. As Ksa articulated, given enough time, probabilities lend themselves to the point that probabilities become a realistic likelihood. . This is a statement of intuition, deduction, logic, or whatever word you choose to use, but it is not a statement of science; and as Esquilax so articulated intuition is not the ultimate authority of truth. Because "millions" of years is not observable, measurable, nor testable it cannot be used as scientific explanation. Science demands it be rejected.

Getting back to life as a chemical equation. No doubt life can be observed as a series of chemical equations. This can be observed and tested. This does not mean however that life came into existence through a series of chemical equations and that is where we must begin. In order to test for how life began we must test how life begins. What we can observe now is the result of life continuing, not beginning. So while life continues as a chemical equation it cannot begin as a chemical equation. Evidence? Non-life has never been systematically observed (the scientific method) becoming life. Today I would imagine we can synthesize compounds from raw materials, even organic compounds and so it's conceivable things "happened" into existence because we ourselves can put them in the proper order. But we cannot observe them putting themselves into order. Nor can we bring it to life. We have to use life to create life. Our synthetic compounds need (through processes I don't fully understand) to be added to something that is already alive (a fertilized egg, or spliced into something living) Science seeks to observe but can't quite put it's finger on how to observe/measure/create life itself.

If we cannot test it, if we cannot observe it, if we cannot recreate it, it cannot be deemed scientific. Albert Einstein said this: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Sounds to me like science requires some faith.

We can test it if it makes predictions about current or future conditions. We can't test a dinosaur but we can predict that life from the Cambrian era in fossil form will fit certain parameters. Evolution CAN make predictions to varying degrees, which means we can test it.

So given the raw materials and enough time even chance would produce RNA or whatever the raw materials could produce

RNA/DNA research is still in its infancy, we've not been observing or sequencing things for millions of years, only a few decades. Just because something hasn't been done yet, does not been it can't be done ever.

ecause "millions" of years is not observable, measurable, nor testable it cannot be used as scientific explanation

How old are stars? We can still see the light from them even though some may have died millions of years ago. Every atom in your body is as old as the universe itself.

This does not mean however that life came into existence through a series of chemical equations and that is where we must begin

It means it's where it probably began. Again, we're discussing a wider framework of science. To suggest that believing RNA could self replicate or what not isn't a scientific claim is not true, a scientific theory attempt to utilise the existing scientific theoretical framework. Conditions are such now that more simple forms of life are often consumed by greater forms of life very quickly etc.

Because "millions" of years is not observable, measurable, nor testable it cannot be used as scientific explanation. Science demands it be rejected.

Non-life has never been systematically observed (the scientific method) becoming life

God isn't observable, measurable, testable and neither were the cranks who wrote the new testament. So why on earth would you latch on to that which has the least (read non) evidence going for it? This is age old gap plugging. "We don't know something (yet) so therefore god did it".

These links articulate the response to your pondering better than me:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB020.html