Nature's Laws

[Crossless2.0]

Here's the thing: there's not a lot to respond to here. You think it's not possible... so what? Where's the actual thing I need to address, in "I don't think this is possible."?

We have people who have created the building blocks of life from chemicals, without any intervention from them, just by putting them in conditions that are closer to the prebiotic Earth, and running an electrical current through them; that's why I suggested you do a search for the Miller-Urey or Joan Oros experiments. The fact that you think your baseball glove will disintegrate is meaningless, firstly because you can't extrapolate what might happen to your mitt to every other form of matter in the universe, for reasons that should be obvious, but also because, well, people have already proven that this stuff is possible. You're arguing against something for which we have literally seen the framework of the process.

True, and I've read about the Miller-Urey experiment, and other similar experiments.  But the all-important question is, does "nature" display a plan, a purpose, and the know-how by which to build machines?  For example, every living cell requires some energy in order to carry out the various tasks that are necessary for the cell to feed itself, get rid of waste, etc.  But that energy has to be made available in just the right form, at the right time, and it needs to be routed to just the right place within the cell.  Every living cell is like car.  All of the parts form various machines, and these machines do specific things for a specific purpose.  Without teleonomy (plan with a purpose) you don't get machines in nature or anywhere else. 

It's interesting how you start with what appears to be an open-ended question (does nature display a plan, a purpose, and the know-how by which to build machines?) only to conclude four sentences later that there is a plan/purpose without bothering to actually demonstrate the point.

How would you distinguish a planned, purposeful result in nature from a result that developed over time without foresight or intent?  What criteria would you use to determine which is which?  Unless I'm mistaken, you're about to go down the argument from design/irreducible complexity pathway.  Be careful with those arguments though; the argument from personal incredulity (which is what they both boil down to) isn't going to get you far.  It certainly won't get you one step closer to demonstrating the need for a creator/god.