Debunked: The idea that unlimited time and chance can explain how the first life on earth could have developed naturally - with no God necessary
See geophysicist Dr. Stephen Meyer and biochemist Dr. James Tour explain why non-theist / Godless theories about the origin of life on earth are NOT helped by the widely believed assertions that unlimited periods of time help explain it. In fact, Meyer and Tour explain why long periods of time are actually the enemy of naturalist explanations and possibilities as to why life on earth could have developed naturally / without a Creator.
See the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6ueGuSzUnI
Stephen Hawking address / Life in the Universe: (Hawking asserts a long period of time would have allowed for the development of the first life on earth)
The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions. Maybe there was some simpler form of organization, which built up DNA. Once DNA appeared, it would have been so successful, that it might have completely replaced the earlier forms. We don't know what these earlier forms would have been. One possibility is RNA. This is like DNA, but rather simpler, and without the double helix structure. Short lengths of RNA, could reproduce themselves like DNA, and might eventually build up to DNA. One can not make nucleic acids in the laboratory, from non-living material, let alone RNA. But given 500 million years, and oceans covering most of the Earth, there might be a reasonable probability of RNA, being made by chance.