That is not why I feel this way.
I wasn't claiming you did. When it comes to religion, though, many people believe everything they're told without a second thought. I know this from personal experience.
Yes, but the question is, where does the natural end and the supernatural begin?
From what I've read of the Deists, of whom many of our Founding Fathers were, they believe in a devine creation and nothing more. It's as simple as that. One quote I remember, which I can paraphrase here goes something like this, "The evidence of the Creator is the creation." This in no way means the Deists of the day were referring to the Christian God.
Yes it would suggest the existence of God. That is the point. It is as likely that a 747 would be assembled by a tornado as a person by evolution.
You're missing the point I'm trying to make. Yes, to witness a tornado surging through a junkyard and leaving a fully functional jetliner in its wake would require devine intervention, or a talented illusionist. It's the equivalent of saying, explicitly, that evolution/life requires devine intervention. It's not a proof; it's not even an argument. It's simply a belief. Using fantastical rhetoric, as this and other so-called mathematical proofs use, is nothing more than an attempt to confuse the ignorant. I despise such charletans who seek to mislead in an attempt to bolster a faith which should be able to stand on its own. Why don't these deceivers say, "The odds of evolution are the same as throwing a standard six-sided die and coming up seven?" Because everyone realizes you cannot throw a seven with a six-sided die. Why don't they say, "...the same as a 70 year old man giving birth to twins?" Because everyone knows men don't give birth. Nobody would accept such ridiculous claims as valid arguments. They are, however, no different than monkeys typing, or watches a shuffling.
You're free to believe and reject anything you want. When you suggest an impossibility as somehow mathematically/scientifically relevant, however, you come off as either ignorant or dishonest.
And though the simplest life is several orders more complex than a 747 people believe we are the products of raw energy and random chance. This defies reason and logic.
It depends on how you define complex. It depends on how you define random. Many things are products of raw energy and random chance. Your tornado, for example. You choose your definitions, and then draw the line between randomness and devine intervention. This line apparently is drawn between living and non-living entities, in your mind. That's fine, but there is no scientific nor mathematical basis for such thinking. It is faith. That's fine, too, but it shouldn't be represented as anything other than faith.
™ Version 4.2
