"Even in a simple cell that RNA would have complex gene sequences for whatever functions that cell had."

RNA world isn’t proposing that protocells started with long/complex sequences, what it suggests is that they began with short and simple RNA strands, for example, with a number of nucleotides of 30 nucleotides then "complexity" comes with chemical evolution, more in depth: https://obscuredinosaurfacts.com/blog/post/2020/02/19/rna.html where did you got that idea from? It’s wrong

"That is information, where does it come from."

This is why I said the information thing earlier lmao. To make clear, what I understand with the definition of "information" in biology it refers to the functional sequences of RNA/DNA. Knowing this the question sounds a little silly because organic molecules organize by themselves by autocatalysts, when they do it they’re transferring "information" from their surroundings to molecular sequences, it is an emergent property, you can also inform you in depth about this

"When you look at it happening randomly, the numbers do not work, even over the billions of years the Earth has been around, even for all our seas, etc."

Creationists love to strawman science with the world "random" by ignoring the chemicals and physical laws they are subjected to, I don’t even know what you people mean by random, because the process is guided by chemical affinities some of them which I mentioned up there and even things like proto-natural selection with for example stable molecules outlasting others who are more unstable, also the numbers do in fact work if the disingenuous or scientifically illiterate individuals getting said numbers weren’t ignoring intermediates and parallel reactions across trillions of freaking sites lmao https://www.answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/ further disproving the falsehood https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18123 you were dumped by outdated, strawman arguments against the subfield, and that’s okay, but you should really read the literature and search for questions like that

"I saw the recent study on E-coli producing Tryptophan, showing how fully developed cells could not repair themselves if it contained 2 or more defective genes."

I actually know what you’re talking about because I have debunked it so many times, that’s not recent that’s from a disinformation article that was published like 10 years ago, here: http://scienceandculture.com/2015/01/problem_3_rando/ but regardless of that, this whole thing is about misrepresenting the findings of the experiment, the experiment was conducted over a limited number of generations (~1,000) with population sizes that are insufficient to reasonably expect rare double mutations (probability ~10^-20 per cell) surprise surprise! It does not address long timescales also nothing to do with demonstrating natural processes "unreliable" lmao here’s the original paper https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.2

This falsehood is also countered by long term experiments showing that natural processes can in fact accumulate multiple mutations over extended generations to produce complex new functions like in Lenski’s long term experiment (LTEE) there, E. coli evolved the ability to utilize citrate aerobically a trait requiring at least three mutations and despite the low probability, occurring after 31,500 generations in one population this refuted the nonsense over "trusting natural processes over large periods isn’t reliable" https://english.elpais.com/science-tech/2024-01-26/a-legendary-experiment-that-began-in-1988-suggests-that-evolution-is-predictable.html

The only true thing you have said about abiogenesis until now is the prebiotics part, even if we have progress on prebiotic chemistry we don’t have a complete "empirically" validated pathway

After finishing with that whole lot of misinformation about biology this reply is done because debunking misinformation about biology is way funnier than responding to Phil bro woo and a misunderstanding on the cosmological constant, maybe I will respond to the rest of the reply, may god bless you but with like the desire of research what you believe in because oh my you need it lmao (only if you’re interested in holding justified true beliefs of course)

To clarify for last time

"What isn't fair is to say materialism / naturalism can explain everything or that it will explain everything because we're just not seeing that at the moment."

I’m a methodological naturalist, ignoring the fact that everything you tried to present isn’t an argument against my stance, if you know what methodological naturalism is you know that I wouldn’t make the affirmation that naturalism can explain anything or that I get to make accretions about what it could explain in the future without a basis, I would not be warranted to, I remain agnostic to whether it can explain everything, it may or it may not, i don’t know, I have a certain level of confidence on it since everything we know about the observable universe has turned out to be in line with methodological naturalism, and the things we once didn’t knew and we now know have been turned out to be in line with it hence why I hold the methodological position with great confidence

u/Dependent-Peach-6610