Ah,.the rancid smell of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy lingers in the air again.
Except that your goat herder mythology contains several explicit exhortations to kill all who do not conform. Exhortations that have been gleefully pursued by mythology fanboys across the best part of two millennia of European history. Your glib attempt at hand-waving away embarrassing facts won’t wash here.
The short answer to this: bollocks.
The longer answer: first of all, we know computers are human artefacts. We have evidence to this effect.
On the other hand, we have zero evidence that a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology was responsible either for the universe at large, or the biosphere in particular. Instead, we have, courtesy of several million peer reviewed scientific papers from the relevant disciplines, evidence that testable natural processes, involving well-defined entities and interactions, are sufficient to account for vast classes of observable phenomena, including classes thereof that the authors of your goat herder mythology were incapable of even fantasising about.
Oh, and your glib, ignorant peddling of “randomness” merely highlights how excremental your inane apologetic vomitings are. First of all, what scientists actually postulate on the origin of life, is, as I stated above, that testable natural processes were responsible, in this case, chemical reactions, and the reason that scientists postulate this, is that life IS chemistry writ large. Millions of chemical reactions are taking place inside your body right now, and if some of those reactions stop, you die.
Furthermore, over 100,000 peer reviewed scientific papers from the prebiotic chemistry literature, document in exquisite detail the experiments demonstrating that the chemical reactions postulated to be implicated in the origin of life all work. Furthermore, that literature is now covering experiments with synthetic protocells, in order to illuminate further the likely pathways that led to life emerging from chemical reactions.
As for your nonsense about “randomness”, it’s obvious that you don’t understand how this term is used in scientific disciplines. Quite simply, a random variable is a variable whose values conform to a probability distribution. The fun part being that such a variable can behave in this manner, while the underlying mechanisms driving that variable are themselves well-defined and deterministic. Indeed, when scientists use the word “random”, they do so as a shorthand for the fact that they know, courtesy of relevant experiments, that several well-defined mechanisms can produce a given result, but that they lack the audit trail of data telling them which of those several mechanisms actually operated in a given instance. As a corollary, they model the result using a probability distribution, and a Markov chain process whose individual pathways have a probability assigned to them, a modelling process that has been extremely successful in several branches of science.
Indeed, every pathway in a Markov chain process is a deterministic process, but when several such paths lead from event A to event B. those different pathways are assigned a probability value, on the basis that [1] any given single transition from A to B can only involve one of those pathways, and [2] multiple transitions from A to B could involve any of the pathways in question. But I don’t expect mythology fanboys to understand elementary concepts such as this.
In short, your blather consists, at bottom, of “I can’t understand how testable natural processes can achieve the end result, therefore Magic Man did it”, a posture that is vacuous and intellectually bankrupt.
Indeed, not only have scientists constructed experiments demonstrating that RNA strands can be synthesised with ease, simply by allowing the constituent simpler molecules to come into contact with a catalyst (and montmorillonite clay, one of the commonest mineral substrates on the planet, happens to be an efficient catalyst for said RNA synthesis), but other experiments have demonstrated that those RNA strands, once they have been synthesised, undergo Darwinian evolution. I have the relevant scientific papers documenting these experiments in my collection.
Furthermore, containerisation of those RNA strands within lipid vesicles is also achieved with ease, courtesy of the fact that many lipid molecules have been demonstrated experimentally to arrange themselves spontaneously into organised structures, such as micelles, bilayer sheets and liposomes, and they require no other impetus to do this, than turbulent agitation of the medium in which they are suspended - in short, shake the bottle. The electrostatic forces between, and uneven charge distribution on, each lipid molecule directs the requisite self-assembly. But since you obviously never learned the basic physics involved, it’s no surprise to observe that you’re incapable of understanding any of this.
Indeed, if you suspend lipids in solution alongside RNA strands, then shake the container, some of those RNA strands end up being encapsulated inside the requisite lipid structures, which then act as selectively permeable membranes allowing some molecules from outside to enter, while screening out others. Again, all understood for decades by chemists. Once said encapsulation has taken place, those lipid structures act as filters keeping out deleteriously competing molecules, while allowing other molecules of metabolic interest to enter the structure.
Far from being “impossible”, all of the above has been demonstrated not only to be possible in laboratory experiments, but has been replicated numerous times by different teams of researchers. “I don’t understand the science” doesn’t invalidate the science, and doesn’t validate a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology.
As for cosmology, oh boy you’re in for a serious surprise when you learn what cosmological physicists are postulating in their recent scientific papers. But I’ll leave that for another time.