There is no evidence of Abiogenesis

[SLD]

From another poster on this guys feed in Facebook:

really..? The coded specified information in DNA alone shows us that this was designed by a mind (the only source of complex specified information) But add onto that the incredible nano technology in every living cell and the incredible nano factory needed to make use of the technology in every single cell and you're beyond just intelligence and into something far superior. God. Our creator.

My reply:

Linda Lotcho simplicity is the hallmark of design, not complexity. Your assumptions about design are just not supported.

…

Linda Lotcho again those are just your conclusions. They aren’t supported by any serious scientific evidence. Your approach represents a fundamental lack of imagination. Because you can’t think of a way a cell has evolved it must be god. This argument has been around for hundreds of years regarding various structures and has been repeatedly been disproven. The eye is a classic example. It was an early objection to Darwin but now we have a very good understanding of the evolution and origin of eyes. It’s not designed. Indeed if it were designed, the designer was incompetent. Furthermore, your argument ignores its own premise. If we require a designer the designer also requires a designer. You end up in an infinite loop. If he doesn’t require a designer then why don’t we?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

From another poster on this guys feed in Facebook:

really..? The coded specified information in DNA alone shows us that this was designed by a mind (the only source of complex specified information) But add onto that the incredible nano technology in every living cell and the incredible nano factory needed to make use of the technology in every single cell and you're beyond just intelligence and into something far superior. God. Our creator.

My reply:

Linda Lotcho simplicity is the hallmark of design, not complexity. Your assumptions about design are just not supported.

…

Linda Lotcho again those are just your conclusions. They aren’t supported by any serious scientific evidence. Your approach represents a fundamental lack of imagination. Because you can’t think of a way a cell has evolved it must be god. This argument has been around for hundreds of years regarding various structures and has been repeatedly been disproven. The eye is a classic example. It was an early objection to Darwin but now we have a very good understanding of the evolution and origin of eyes. It’s not designed. Indeed if it were designed, the designer was incompetent. Furthermore, your argument ignores its own premise. If we require a designer the designer also requires a designer. You end up in an infinite loop. If he doesn’t require a designer then why don’t we?

Nicely done. I think there is a basic failing among people like Linda, that being the inability to distinguish between an evidenced claim and an unevidenced claim. And that's because emotions are dominant in many people and they like to believe what feels good, not what is supported by evidence.