Dear Mr. Ding Dong, Mr. Mouth, and Percy,
My apologies, I apparently did not make my analogy clear.
Before the first cell was alive it existed as a pre-life group of items amino acids, monomers of proteins, ATP, and a whole bunch of other organic molecules, ect. It is this pre-life cell I am comparing to my laptop, not T-rex.
As for widows being more complex than DNA, I’d Like to hear what Mr. Ding Dong has to say about that.
Percy says, There is hardly any available evidence to help us figure out how the first life came about, and scientists accept a natural origin of life primarily because of a simple logical progression. When we look inside a cell we see nothing but chemistry. Complicated organic chemistry, to be sure, but just chemistry nonetheless, and certainly no evidence of the divine. Even reproduction is just chemistry. So if all life is just complicated chemistry, then as you trace life back to its beginnings you should still find nothing but chemistry.
Of course, I could say that my laptop runs on simple, low voltage, electrical impulses. And since it’s far simpler than a single celled life form {which has machines in it that are built atom by atom, and that perform function on a microscopic scale} there’s no reason to assume that it was designed. After all, the fact that a pre-cell became complex enough to achieve life shows that non-living things can achieve high states of complexity. Right?
As for me over simplifying things, here again, I must have not maid myself clear, and again, I apologize for this.
My point, to all of this, is that, if anything, you’re over simplifying what it takes for life, any life, to come in to existence.
Even the simplest single celled life form we know of today is, by far, to complex a system of machines to have come into existence with out an intellect behind it.
I’m not disputing that some of the, vary simple, parts could be just part of the right condition. I am, however, disputing the notion that life comes from, is a product of, lifelessness; that a single celled life form can be produced with out an intellect producing it.
I can say that an intellect produced my laptop, and, if I study its design long enough, tell you how it was created. Acknowledging that something is the product of an intellect {I.E. it was designed} has no bearing on whether or not you can find out how it was maid. However, learning how something was made can give great insight to the one who made it.
The point here is that, if I see something that has both organization and complexity I look for an intelligent designer.
A hurricane has organization, but is vary low on the complexity scale; I accept that it is the product of natural circumstances.
The universe has both organization and complexity; therefore, I come to the conclusion that it has an intelligent designer.
The Grand Canyon has organization, but, again, is vary low on the complexity scale; I accept that it is a product of natural circumstances.
My cell phone has both organization and complexity; therefore, I come to the conclusion that it has an intelligent designer.
Whether or not anything has both organization and complexity, it not the only criteria that I could use to decide whether or not something was made {I.E. created by an intelligent designer}, but it is one good measuring stick.
For instance, a park bench has vary little complexity {I.E. it is a vary simple design.} but, we’re not going to mistake six peaces of lumber bolted to a metal frame for a natural occurrence. Thus, not all designed things are complex, but all ‘relatively’ complex things are designed; the more complex the item, the more intelligent the designer must be. {I.E. someone with an I.Q. of, say, fifty would not be able to design and build a laptop computer}
Although, there are things out there that are on the fence, sort-a-speak; most things can easily be recognized as either natural formations or designed by an intelligent designer.
I once heard of a rock formation off some coast somewhere. If I remember correctly it runs for a few miles, and seems to be queried stone. Some archeologists are saying that it is an ancient road that was once part of a long gone civilization. On the other hand, there are other archeologists that say this stone, because of its type, density, and where it is, formed naturally.
This would be an example of a boarder-line item.
Now, Mr. Mouth say, This {‘Windows’ is a far less complicated program then the simplest DNA strand we see in nature. Is it not?} 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.
I’m not too sure I understand what you’re trying to say here.
Are you saying that my analogy is not correct because the first cells may have been much simpler? or, are you trying to say that, if it turns out that the first cell were much simpler than the ones we see today; then my analogy may not fit.?
Mr. Ding Dong states, We know for a fact that organic molecules form naturally rather easily under certain condition. That is true, unfortunately, unless I miss my guess, different molecules require different conditions.
Mr. Ding Dong goes on to say that, This was demonstrated by the Miller experiment in the early 50's. He basically created an enclosed apparatus and he put inside water, hydrogen gas, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and a whole bunch of other non-organic molecules that thought to have existed in early earth environment. He then zapped the apparatus with electricity for about 3-4 days. He then took the apparatus apart and found amino acids, monomers of proteins, ATP, and a whole bunch of other organic molecules.
Fuz Rana, Ph.D. says that, most origin-of-life researchers now consider Miller’s experiments irrelevant. The consensus view of atmospheric constituents has changed since the 1950s. Then they were thought to be hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor.1 Now, scientists believe early Earth’s atmosphere was composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water. This gas mixture does not yield organic compounds in prebiotic simulation experiments (hence, no primordial soup)a devastating blow for the naturalistic origin-of-life scenario.2 {Taken from Carbon Monoxide Kills Hopes for Primordial Soup
Home - Reasons to Believe}
1) Stanley L. Miller, A Production of Amino Acids under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions, Science 117 (1953), 528-29; Stanley L. Miller, Production of Some Organic Compounds Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions, Journal of American Chemical Society 77 (1955): 2351-66.
2) Franois Raulin, Atmospheric Prebiotic Synthesis, presentation at the 12th International Conference on the Origin of Life and the 9th meeting of the International Conference on the Origin of Life, San Diego, CA 1999; Stanley L. Miller, The Endogenous Synthesis of Organic Compounds, The Molecular Origins of Life: Assembling Pieces of the Puzzle, ed. Andr Brack (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 59-85.
This message has been edited by jrtjr1, 08-21-2004 11:59 PM
John3: 16, 17
™ Version 4.2