Was talking to a friend about evolution and the origin of life, and his complaints that two many people today hold unto a lot of Darwin's research from 200 years ago as a kind of pseudo religion to prop up their aesthetic world view, and that the complexities of life and how it came to be are more complex than that and that ultimately the chances of life coming to be are so improbable that only an outside entity could account for it, showing me this video, which I actually find pretty well put together, the guy makes some good points regarding a lot of the failures of modern scientists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU7Lww-sBPg

I argue though just because the model he set up is more indicative of it not having all the necessary variables that would be needed to make an accurate estimate of what the probability actually was, as thorough as he seems there are just to many variables to include and theory's to entertain to be able to definitely say that's it's just not realistically possible to say mutations don't account for why we've evolved from basically nothing within the span of a billion years.

While i'm not Christian, I do feel like he brings up a good point in how other scientists don't seem to put a lot of emphasis on where and how exactly pre-biotic systems formed and organized, I seemed to like the RNA World theory and the idea that clay played a big role in the first RNA but how well does it hold up?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYQQD0KNOis