Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists Apply Within

mike the wiz, you don't understand what you are talking about. I don't mean that as an insult, it is actually not a simple concept to grasp, and by not grasping it nearly all of your assumptions are wrong. Let's start from the beginning:Matter exists, and by its structure it has certain properties. Chemicals and compounds react with each other in ways defined by their structure, nothing more or less. It happens to be that Earth contains conditions which allow matter to form structures which tend to form similar structures in turn; sort of like a snowflake providing a nucleation site for another snowflake. The chemicals that make up this reproducing structure reacted because of what they are inherently; there was no choice or guidance, they simply behaved the way the rules of reality required. Once the structures are reproducing the fittest survive and reproduce better, and the chain of life begins.There is no reason to invent some mystical property to apply to matter forming a living creature, it simply works because of what it is. There is no reason to invent other universes. There is no reason to assume that DNA had an intelligence behind it. There *is* a reason that substances would arrange themselves, namely the physical properties that govern their behavior with other matter. Your logic fails because you cannot grasp the concept that organisms are formed purely through chemical means.

Of course it can. It always will if my knowledge is based on hard evidence and your wisdom is based on subjective experiences and hearsay. There is plenty of research that explains how the chemical reactions that occur in organisms drive their function. Just because we have not made them from scratch or explained every last chemical process does mean that your concept of a magical component is required. I have not thought about the penny example because it is stupid. The penny's third side is, like the magical quality of life, all in your head. You are looking at the string of ten pennies and concluding out of the blue that the only way to attain such a state is for your penny to land on the mystical 10-headed side. This is again a poor example. We don't have any precedent to believe that motorcycles breed in the wild, and we do have strong evidence that it was created (by us of course). In the case of life we have plenty of precedent to believe that life works the way that it does simply due to the sum of its physical parts, and we don't have any evidence that it was intentionally created. You keep going on about some required property beyond that of the constituent matter of the organism, some "spark of life" that is required to make an organism alive. Can you point to even one shred of evidence that proves such a property exists? Take a break from constructing straw men and actually support your argument rather than trying to prove it through attacking others.

No, but your likelihood of making untrue claims rises sharply the less you know of the subject. I was politely assuming that your flawed concepts of biology stemmed from lack of knowledge and not design. Even *if* there was no data that showed life can originate from matter, a stance with which I strongly disagree, your "solution" to the problem is not worthy of attention. Unless you have convincing supporting evidence to back up your claimed solution it holds no more weight than any other random idea. You have lost me here. First of all, why and how are you distinguishing fact from evidence? Second, your claim that DNA is purely information and information only matters to intelligence is ludicrous! DNA is a chemical compound; are you suggesting that chemical compounds don't operate as their structure defines unless there is an intelligence there to witness it? This is where you went wrong, you are misusing one of the simplest logical constructs. Your theory is that if X, then Y. In order to properly go about "affirming the antecedent" the logic would be:
If X, then Y.
X.
Therefore, Y.Instead you say that you are using the consequent of the modus ponen as your evidence. This is a formal fallacy called "affirming the consequent". You are trying to do this:
If X, then Y.
Y.
Therefore, X.This does not logically work.If I have misinterpreted any part of your post please attempt to explain your point again, I had an extremely difficult time getting a coherent though out of your post.