[Capuchin]

Too high? If you saw a Lambourghini in a field, would you accept the argument that it came about naturally even though no one could come up with any feasible way that it could? Would you argue that we set our standards too high?

The reality is that the complexity of a Lambourghini pales in comparison to the complexity of the simplest single cell.

The simplest single cell was something akin to a ring of hydrophilic and hydrophobic chemicals, this is many orders of magnitude less complex than a car.

[michealb]

If I saw the car replicate on it's own with diversity in those replications and saw simpler forms of the car in the fossil layer. Yes I would think it got there on it own.

[Tj3]

If I saw the car replicate on it's own with diversity in those replications and saw simplier forms of the car in the fossil layer. Yes I would think it got there on it own.

So, if I left a Lambourghini, a Austin mini and a Ford Model T in the field, I would have a believer in car evolution.

[Tj3]

The simplest single cell was something akin to a ring of hydrophilic and hydrophobic chemicals, this is many orders of magnitude less complex than a car.

Maybe later I will post the diagram showing the internal chemical processes in a simple single cell.

[templelane]

A cell today is magnitudes more complex than the first cell would have been.

Anyway it is not as complicated as it seems. Like computers, they seem irreducible complex but it all boils down to on or off signals. And before you use that as a 'but computers were intellegntly designed' argument, I am using them as an example of how complex systems can be based on very simple principals.

Have you ever played the game of life?
John Conway's Game of Life

It shows how design and complexity can originate sponteously from a simple system.

[michealb]

So, if I left a Lamborghini, a Austin mini and a Ford Model T in the field, I would have a believer in car evolution.

No because your missing the self replication part. Evolution doesn't make sense unless all of the stipulations are met. Which they are all met by life on earth.

[Capuchin]

Maybe later I will post the diagram showing the internal chemical processes in a simple single cell.

I don't think we have the same idea of a simple cell.

[Tj3]

A cell today is magnitudes more complex than the first cell would have been.

Your evidence for this statement is? Or are your assuming evolution? If so then that is a circular argument - it must have been simpler because your assume your conclusion.

Anyway it is not as complicated as it seems. Like computers, they seem irreducible complex but it all boils down to on or off signals. And before you use that as a 'but computers were intellegntly designed' argument, I am using them as an example of how complex systems can be based on very simple principals.

I am an engineer - I am very familiar with the workings of computers and the complexity is far greater than you seem to think. Making a statement like that is like saying that anyone could build a spacestation - after all it is just make up of bits of metal :D

Have you ever played the game of life?
John Conway's Game of Life

It shows how design and complexity can originate sponteously from a simple system.

Let's deal with the real world.

[Tj3]

No because your missing the self replication part. Evolution doesn't make sense unless all of the stipulations are met. Which they are all met by life on earth.

So that is one of the questions - tell me how the first simple living cell evolved from inaminate matter.

See I used to believe in evolution so I know what the claims and stipulations are. The evidence does not support the claims of evolution. That is why I raised this and chose to examine these points from a scientific perspective to determine if they are feasible within the bounds of the theory of evolution. So far it appears that most evolutionists have faith that these things can just happen if you leave long enough time regardless of whether they are feasible or not.

[wildandblue]

Yes also tell us exactly how a living cell is different from a dead one or from an inanimate object with the same chemical makeup and where the life goes to at the moment of its death, and why we can't put it's life back in. Or how if a cell divides they both have the same life in each one, a doubling of life, each one can then die independently without affecting the other.

[michealb]

Tj3 if you knew anything about evolution you would know that it doesn't deal with the first living thing. Evolution only deals with the diversification of living things. So perhaps if you understood evolution you would continue to realize the fact of evolution. I don't know anything to tell you about that other than you are mistaken and if you can be mistaken about something that basic maybe you are mistaken about many many other things. What is even worse is that you continue to be mistaken even though you have been told this before is there something wrong with you that you don't get this?

What you are questioning is abiogenesis and I will fully state that we do not know how non-living matter becomes living matter. Now we have many hypothesises about how this happened but we don't know exactly. If you can prove god did it more power to you but you can't so until we know for certain we will continue to research this subject despite your objections.

[michealb]

yes also tell us exactly how a living cell is different from a dead one or from an inanimate object with the same chemical makeup and where the life goes to at the moment of its death, and why we can't put it's life back in. Or how if a cell divides they both have the same life in each one, a doubling of life, each one can then die independently without affecting the other.

I can tell you the difference between a live cell and a dead cell. The chemical reactions within that cell stop. The reason we can't turn life back on is because information is stored in the chemical reaction and unless we know that information we can't restore it and we haven't figured that out yet. The reason life can split and die independently of each other is the same reason you can split a fire and put one out and not the other.

[inthebox]

:D

Your right we are willing to write down a lot more if and admit we don't know everything as of yet. If you were truly honest with yourselves though would would to admit to more and larger ifs than us.

If god has always been.
If god is perfect.
IF god exists
If god inspired the bible
If god is all powerful
If god doesn't have an end
If god is beyond our reasoning
If god is not responsible for evil
If god created the earth 6000 years ago
If god created the macaw
If god created fossils
If god created the eye
If god created thumbs
If god created poisons
If god ......
I could go on but I think you get my point well actually I know you don't get my point but I've reached the point at which others will get my point and I know no matter how many ifs I give you for your theory it doesn't matter because you will always fall back on god did it and never pursue real knowledge instead resting on the false knowledge of god did it and the reason I say it's false knowledge is because god did it has never been the correct answer we have never found a question that has been proven that the answer is god did it and I even think you will agree with me that we will never find scientific prove of god. There for if it is a scientific question the answer can't be god did it.

So why do you believe the "IFS" of evolutionists? Is it because it is the religion or faith that you prefer? :D

[inthebox]

The simplest single cell was something akin to a ring of hydrophilic and hydrophobic chemicals, this is many orders of magnitude less complex than a car.

Is the Design Explanation Legitimate?

" Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 base pairs[11]"


I doubt any car has 580,000 parts that have to fit perfectly and in correct sequence :eek:

[inthebox]

A cell today is magnitudes more complex than the first cell would have been.

Anyway it is not as complicated as it seems. Like computers, they seem irreducible complex but it all boils down to on or off signals. And before you use that as a 'but computers were intellegntly designed' argument, I am using them as an example of how complex systems can be based on very simple principals.

Have you ever played the game of life?
John Conway's Game of Life

It shows how design and complexity can originate sponteously from a simple system.

How can the "simple" system of DNA be exactly right for transcription and translation?

Not only do you need dna but the enzymes the cell the aminoacids the cell machinery needed to make and modify protein etc... such a far cry from "simple"

Just like a computer code is not enough - who puts all the parts together?

[inthebox]

so, if i left a lambourghini, a austin mini and a ford model t in the field, i would have a believer in car evolution.

:d Maybe if you wait long enough an inanimate car will become living :D

[Tj3]

Tj3 if you knew anything about evolution you would know that it doesn't deal with the first living thing.

Then evolution has no answers because until there is a single living thing, there is no chance for evolution. If life is not feasible with a natural explanation, then you have just lost the whole debate.

The question to you was how did simple single cells come to be created naturally. I did not specify that it had to be by evolution. But even thwn no one has an answer.

[michealb]

Then evolution has no answers because until there is a single living thing, there is no chance for evolution. If life is not feasible with a natural explanation, then you have just lost the whole debate.

The question to you was how did simple single cells come to be created naturally. I did not specify that it had to be by evolution. But even thwn no one has an answer.

Evolution has no answers for why it rains either what's your point. Just because evolution doesn't say anything about how the first cell came about doesn't mean there isn't a natural solution.

As I have been saying and you seem to be incapable of understanding. There are many possible ways the first cell came to be. We however haven't been able to be certain which method is the correct one. Scientist unlike religious people like to be certain about things before they go around saying things are facts there for it takes longer than just saying god did it. You however wanted a possible answer so here you go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

[michealb]

:D


So why do you believe the "IFS" of evolutionists? Is it because it is the religion or faith that you prefer? :D

One because they are more likely to be true. It's easier to believe that a bird that swallows stones would get some mud with it, than to believe god poofed the bird into existence as it is and the devil then put things out there to make it seem like god didn't poof it into existence. It's like saying the world is flat but the devil changes the pictures to make the world appear round.

The other reason is because the answer has never been that a supernatural force did it. Never not once in fact has there ever been any proof of a supernatural force at all. So forgive me if I tend to believe answers that deal in reality rather than some force that has never been proven.

[Tj3]

Evolution has no answers for why it rains either what's your point. Just because evolution doesn't say anything about how the first cell came about doesn't mean there isn't a natural solution.

Why are you creating strawmen arguments. I asked for a feasible explanation as to how this might occur naturally.

If you think that there is one, then out with it!

As I have been saying and you seem to be incapable of understanding. There are many possible ways the first cell came to be. We however haven't been able to be certain which method is the correct one.

And you cannot tell us one feasible way?

Scientist unlike religious people like to be certain about things before they go around saying things are facts there for it takes longer than just saying god did it.

I have a science degree, and I am going entirely based upon the evidence. Perhaps you are not aware, but the start of the scientific method is to observe, and then come forward with an feasible way in which that might occur.

You however wanted a possible answer so here you go.
YouTube - 3 -- The Origin of Life made easy

The other part of the scientific method is testing the theory. This theory has been tested by the top scientists in the field and so far has failed to produce life. I did notice the video used that magic ingredient of evolution - "and then after millions of years" as though something which could even start in a few years would somehow magically occur after millions of years.

Nice try though. I might add that YouTube would not be my idea of a highly credible scientific source.