True. But how complex does it need to be to produce the first complex molecules? As complex as an underwater volcanic rift?
And what complex thing do they form?
Can those first complex molecules be stable enough to continue existence outside of the complex environment? Amino acids have been found on comets and meteorites.
Um... OK. You mean meteorites that have been sampled and tested on Earth.
And, you believe this with blind faith, right? Where's the evidence?
It may. It may also make complex molecules that are not so easily torn apart by a change in environment.
Maybe, but rarely, and never immune to decomposition, and when you add time to the equation, the probability of decomposition increases greatly, which is why you need a stable, complex environment.
Again, chicken or egg.
The 8 random directions was a scenario for evolution but it can still apply here. If there were 8 random things that could happen to a molecule and one of them was to move to an environment that was not going to break it apart then the millions/billions of molecules made in a complex environment would have at least some that would "survive" (for lack of a better word).
OK, but you still need the complex environment.
Chicken? Egg?
Not if one of the "directions" was an environment not hostile to the molecule but outside of the "complex creative" environment. The buildup of the complex molecules (increase solution concentration) in the subsequent environment would actually change it such that other reactions might occur to make even more complex molecules.
Great, but those are not real world conditions.
Rocks and water with lightning and wind, etc. working within the confines of chemical binding rules do not provide any mechanism to produce a linear transition of complexity.
Again, complexity will be broken down by the same electrical flow that creates it, by the same acid that facilitated it, by the same base that promoted it.
In short, there is a strong, everlasting favor toward simple stability, and we just cannot get away from that.
Even passing a molecule from one environment to another does not increase probability of increasing complexity in the long run because the environments are suffering the same consequence as the molecule in question.
Again, this type of system simply cannot get of the ground, so to speak, unless there is an external intelligence. The fundamental rules do not facilitate it the molecule or the environment.
If you look at an environment such as a machine (human body), which does facilitate predictable repeating complexity (a pure example could be reproduction), you're still left with the chicken and the egg problem.
This problem that I am pointing out is precisely why the powers-that-be have now invented panspermia. This concept is not only being depicted in more and more movies (especially those geared for children -- "get 'em while they're young) but there are some scientists exploring it on an intellectual level.
Mission To Mars
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0183523/This is the only scenario that will satisfy most of the myriad of problems with abiogenesis, but not evolution.
This theory is now being expanded to actually claim that humans were genetically modified by aliens and brought to Earth.
This claims satisfies both problems (abiogenesis and evolution).
Unfortunately (for them), it presents a new problem: Infinite regress.
In other words, where did the aliens come from -- evolve, etc.?
The only view that solves all of these problems is creation, but that view scares a lot of people because it implies personal responsibility, and many people don't like that idea, so they keep looking for (or inventing) evidence to the contrary.
Which you said could facilitate the building of complex molecules.
Which process builds a complex molecule, and how complex?
Complex enough to reproduce?
Certainly these environments change but not after building complex molecules. Besides an underwater volcanic vent can be around for many thousands of years. How many complex molecules could it make in that time? Billions per day?
And those molecules move off into cooler water and break back down through natural entropic processes.
Complex structures are made by the tides. Caves, rock formations, tide pools....
Intelligence implies repetition.
Do you see letters of an ocean-created alphabet formed on the shores spelling out intelligent messages over and over?
No.
You only see random patters of erosion, breakdown, and endless shifting, and all this well understood by the fact that binding rules do these things without any additional intelligence.
Water breaks down rock to form caves. Does this mean the water is intelligent?
These structures are not intelligence. They are the natural, predictable result of natural processes based on simple rules.
You say this but have not actually supported it with any math calculations at all. Could you reference a statistical calculation somewhere on the web.
I have supported it right here on this forum, and you were there...
http://urlbam.com/ha/M0024Not really. Industrial chemical processes are performed in just that manner. Chemicals are mixed in one environment to a particular concentration and then moved to another environment where the high concentration of the new compound coupled with the new environment causes more complex molecules to be built. These methods are profitable for the chemical company, so they are obviously not inefficient.
...If you judge efficiency as a ratio between complexity and profit margin.
Again, my point stands. This is a very inefficient way to create.
These companies employ intelligently-designed complex processes to produce profitable chemicals. This example does not scale to the complexity of biological organisms.
But all this is mute. God can create however He wants. We're just trying to discover how He did it.
The evidence I see strongly suggests that evolution and abiogenesis had nothing to do with it.
There was an original creation a long time ago, then new things were created about 6000 years ago. Thus, we see strong evidence for both, just as we would expect, and just as the Bible states.
http://urlbam.com/ha/M0020Only if you have to have Genesis be literal history. There are stories in other parts of the Bible that are not considered true yet they have value as life lessons.
Things in the Bible that are parables (symbolic) are clearly so. There's no indication that the creation account is parabolic.
The taking of the mark of the beast, for example, is clearly literal, although many mistake it for a parabolic example.
Everyone is at a different place in their understanding of the Bible.
Please expound on this. Sudden appearance of all species at the same place in the fossil record just like it says in Genesis?
Not sure what you're missing.
It's clear that life suddenly appeared roughly the time the Bible said it did.
Of course, there is great debate over this, but this is to be expected because there are those standing to profit greatly by discrediting the Bible. Just as there is great debate over the cause of autism, but again, there are people who stand to profit greatly by discrediting the evidence that autism is caused by mercury.
Nevertheless, two people can look at the same evidence and interpret it differently. The problem here that most people don't realize is that one's morality affects how accurately they are able to interpret evidences.
In short, those with an agenda risk misinterpreting the Bible. I took on the Bible, creation, and evolution with no agenda except to know the truth so I could live my life in a way that would best profit from it.
If evolution was true, I would have conducted myself a certain way. If creation was true, I would conduct myself another way. I didn't care which was true so long as I could discover which one it was.
Not having an agenda (predisposition) I was able to interpret the evidence clearly, without bias, and I did.
