I did not say cells were "simple" nor did I compare them to snowflakes. The snowflake example was to show that God can put rules in place that don't require Him to form every chemical bond with His own hands.
That said, I find your post to be little but an attempt to insult me along with all who consider evolution to be a viable theory, implying we are stupid or liars. So, I am requesting that you post something that is at least on topic and is also not a thinly veiled insult. I got a single and final warning for my behavior so I would expect Mr Tanner to hold you to the same standard. I would hate to see you forced out if we were having a good debate.
On topic? Please! It's certainly on topic. We both know that the least complex lifeforms are more complex than anything formed via natural means by many, many orders of magnitude. Abiogenesis advocates claim complexity is no problem because snowflakes and other
extremely simple crystals form naturally.
I will state flat out that the argument that crystals demonstrate nature has the capacity to form something as complex as life is only capable of convincing people who are very uninformed and/or predisposed to believe in spite of the evidence. I put it in easy-to-understand terms, and you say this = calling people "stupid or liars". It seems to me, the ones who try to hide this argument in long, drawn-out, difficult-to-understand terms would be the ones insulting people.
It's S.O.P (standard operating procedure) for evolutionists to always call early lifeforms "simple", and call snowflakes "complex". Every new definition they advocate for "life" is invariably much simpler than what we know "life" actually is.
I'll be happy to grant that you are free to deviate from this doctrine. I sincerely hope that is your choice. It's a step in the right direction (toward reality). I can provide plenty of links to evolutionists saying these things while discussing abiogenesis. Would you agree that they are mistaken? <Not rhetorical - please answer this if you respond.
This here is an example of life being called "simple". There's an abundant supply. Likewise it's no problem to find examples of snowflakes being called "complex". How much time would you have me waste? Tell you what: as time permits, I'll match you link for link to any you can dig up where an evolutionist calls a snowflake "simple". I'll also match anything you can dig up where an evolutionist advocates a new definition of "life" that tends toward complexity rather than simplicity with
3 links supporting what I've maintained.
Now considering that creationists are aware of the rules God has put in place to govern chemicals, and the point isn't disputed, your remark would seem to be off-topic if you don't intend to pursue the standard proabiogenesis argument. Please understand my error in assuming you meant it to be on-topic.
** For the record, I hereby request Mr. Tanner to hold me to the same standard as anyone else here. I've abandoned discussion boards in the past for displaying clear patterns of favoritism, and I fully intend to hold board admins to a fair standard as well. **
