Converting raw energy into biological energy

I would remind you that a virus is nothing more than a tiny package of DNA encapsulated in an envelope.

What you're doing is burying the public in exclamations of incredulity and assertians of insurmountable problems.

Rob, care to tell me how all the water gets up on top of the mountains for it to run back down again in a river?

You know, Rob, that it has also yet to be shown that there is an intelligence elsewhere.

So what? you've been told multiple times before that science doesn't "prove" anything, science is tentative and always will be.

Hardly the millions of components you seem to think necessary for an "organism".

That's not moving "beyond the evidence" -- in fact, "moving beyond the evidence" would be jumping to the conclusion that "God must have done it!" despite the utter lack of evidence for such a conclusion.

Because it is a dumb argument. DNA is not a code in the same sense that language is, nor is it a language. The whole argument now falls flat.

Rob:Chiroptera: Because it is a dumb argument.

Rob: Sidelined: Prime numbers.

Intelligent forces?

If any natural method of creating the code can be demonstrated, then it must be listed as probably NOT from an intelligence.

"Any undergraduate can read the instruction manual and prouduce a long piece of DNA -perhpas the gene coding for a known protein- in a day or two".

"Making the molecules of life by chemical processes outside of a cell is actually rather easy. Any competent chemist can buy some chemicals from a supply company, weigh them in the correct proportion, dissolve them in an appropriate solvent, heat them in a flask for a predetermined amount of time, and purify the desired chemical produce away from unwanted chemicals produced by side reactions . Most readers will quickly see the problem. There were no chemists four billion years ago. Neither were there any chemical supply houses, distillation flasks, nor any of the many other devices that the modern chemist uses daily in his or her laboratory, and which are necessary to get good results . "

"As an analogy, suppose a famous chef said that random natural processes could produce a chocolate cake. In his effort to prove it, we would not begrudge him taking whole plants - including wheat, cacao, and sugar cane - and placing them near a hot spring, in the hope that the heated water would extract the right materials and cook them. But we would become a little wary if the chef bought refined flour, cocoa, and sugar at the store, saying that he didn't have time to wait for the hot water to extract the components from the plants. We would shake our heads if he then switched his experiment from a hot spring to an electric oven, to "speed things up." And we would walk away if he then measured the amounts of the components carefully, mixed them in a bowl, placed them in a pan, and baked them in his oven. The results would have nothing to do with his original idea that natural processes could produce a cake"

It would have to be a code that could not be explained by any natural process. Even then, it would only be accepted as possibly sent by intelligence.

But you acknowledge, Rob, that convection and evaporation can get water to the top of a hill? Without an intelligent pump?
It addresses the thermodynamics example you brought up earlier, not life.

Oh. So it's easy now.What was with all the bitching and moaning upthread then?