quote:
a) A, very basic, cell wall can form on it’s own.
b) The simple building block of the genetic code can form, under the right condition, with out intervention.
c) These, pre genetic code strands can copy them selves.
I think, in general, we can all agree with this definition.
quote:
Now, lets apply these to another scenario vary similar to yours.
Let’s take the HP Laptop I’m writing this letter on.
Under the right conditions we can see that some of the same metals mix together in, somewhat, the same way as they are found in the material found in this laptop.
HP laptops aren't a product of nature, nor do they reproduce. Secondly, it is not possible for an HP laptop to naturally form. However, it has been shown that the chemicals needed for life do spontaneously form without outside intervention. Also, some of these chemicals ARE capable of catalysing chemical reactions. Therefore, observations, not fantasy, have led science towards plausible pathways for abiogenesis.
quote:
Each time I go to one of these discussion boards, any one who question’s evolution is called stupid, or worse, and ridiculed for having ‘faith’.
I try not to ridicule anyone, and especially not their faith. However, we do see quite a few basic misconceptions that most creationist or laymen make. For instance, this thread deals with abiogenesis, not evolution. Abiogenesis is a theory within chemistry while evolution requires that life first be present and is found within biology. For evolution to work all you need is an imperfect replicator. It doesn't matter where it came from or how it got there, all that matters is that life was present. If the first life was bacteria planted by space aliens the theory of evolution would be unaffected. However, abiogenesis is a separate theory and makes statements about where life first came from and how it arose. It is best not to confuse the two since there are obvious differences between the two theories.
quote:
‘Windows’ is a far less complicated program then the simplest DNA strand we see in nature. Is it not?
They are about equal in length, but Windows is much more complex. Also, you are equating DNA sequences that we see TODAY and extrapolating them back into the past. This is not accurate nor logical since the first life to use DNA may have been much simpler than anything we see today. Also, the first life may not even have used DNA. The first life may have used catalytic RNA, proteins, or a combination of the two. All you need is a chemical that makes more of itself and voila, you have started life.
quote:
You don’t expect me to believe my laptop evolved {I.E. with no intelligent design}. Do you.
Of course not, because laptops don't make more of themselves. For evolution to work you need reproduction, therefore laptops are not analogous to life.
quote:
If my laptop, as simple as it is {compared to a single cell} could not have come into existence with out thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of man hours of intelligent designers, then why do you insist that a living cell can come in to existence with out intelligent design?
Because of the natural algorithm of natural selections and mutation. This causative forces cause increases in complexity and information within reproducing populations. A fair analogy would be comparing a reproducing population to a reproducing population. You have yet to do this.
quote:
So, if we are to believe, have faith in, evolution we must be willing to believe that all thing that show both organization, and complexity could come into existence with out intelligent design. After all the most organized, and complex thing in this universe, a single cell, did.
It doesn't require faith. In fact, abiogenesis and evolution don't even require you to believe in it. It stands by itself on the strength of objective evidence. Whether or not you believe that men landed on the moon has nothing to do with the fact that the evidence supports the moon landings. We have never seen life intelligently designed. We have never seen a supernatural deity shuffle DNA. However, we have seen random configurations of atoms derived from earth like conditions cause self catalyzing reactions.
[quote]Sorry, That take[s] more blind faith then I have.[/quote]
Good thing that science doesn't rely on faith. Also, what takes more faith, observations of natural phenomena that can result in self catalyzing reactions or faith in a supernatural deity that has never been evidenced? Would you be the type of person to credit Thor for producing thunder because you feel that swirling hailstones could not possible create the sound?
™ Version 4.2