You are the one who argued the point of using “logic” to determine an outcome. If you start with a premise for which we do not have a basis for validity then any logical argument based on it being true and valid gives rise to a result that is not persuasive.

I have seen your style of arguing and you tend to argue that your position is true, hence any arguments against your position have to be false because your position is true and you don’t actually have to prove anything because your position is true.

This is usually what a “true believer” argues from. Religious, political and scientific arguments of this nature don’t lead anywhere.

Finally, since none of us were there when life came into being (whatever life might be and we don’t have any actual knowledge of what the conditions or circumstances were at the time, as in actual verifiable measurements), any arguments about how/what/why of life’s beings are purely speculative and are based on our individual belief systems. You cannot prove anything about life’s beginnings. You can certainly make hypotheses but verifying them or proposing experiments for them fail in one very singular way – we don’t have the starting conditions available for us any more, they are not even reproducible because we don’t know what they were.

So we can’t even argue about complexity since complexity is in the eye of the beholder. Look into the subject of perception for examples of this. If you have asked the wrong question then you will never get the right answer.