I find this to be the best part of your reply. It is to the point concerning the reason we should all be very clear when classifying anything at all.

Even the "simplest" life form that we know of is much more complex than a snowflake. I'll agree to that.

That's why supporters of evolution should qualify what they mean by "simple" life forms. The majority of the time we use the snowflake to show that complexity can (at least seem to) come about through "natural" processes.
Single celled organisms are "simple" when you compare them to organisms that we deal with in our normal lives. So when using the word simple, those of us communicating must ensure that we qualify the standard of comparison.

Back to the snowflake. It, indeed, does show that complexity can arise from natural processes. The formation of molecules (Water, Sulfur + heat forms H2SO4, a strong acid) shows that complexity can arise from natural chemical processes. Admittedly, these are relatively minor increases in complexity, but they are increases, nonetheless. I believe you and I can agree on this amount of complexity increase.

So...
If complexity can increase through natural processes then what is the upper limit of complexity that can be achieved though those processes? Amino acids, like the ones found in meteors? Proteins? RNA? DNA? Cells? Life?

How can we identify this upper limit.

If there is an upper limit in the complexity that can be brought about by natural processes, what is the mechanism that sets this upper limit?

These are questions I would expect anti-abiogenesists to explore in order to support their theory that God made life in it's final form instantaneously.


Thanks for that pronouncement.