I don't mind agreeing to disagree Doug :-)

But I will name one example...
You know how rivers silt up. Silt consists of highly chemically complex rock minerals. There are limitless variations on this structure. The colloidal size of a silt and the siltation rate will vary with the crystalline structure. A silt which is effective in sludging up the works and drying up the river will self progagate more readily because as the bed dries the wind blows away the crystals (which you see as dust) which will in turn result in the seeding of other systems (crystals grow, and often with little imperfections). So the nature of the crystalline structure evolves with increasing complexity driven by a selection process - effective siltation and seeding other waterways.
Now we know that clays aren't alive, by normal definitions. But the're extremely complex things which have evolved over a long period of time; and no-one designed them Doug, they did it all by themselves.

By claiming to know one thing, I'm not claiming to know everything. Please don't accuse me of arrogance. Richard Dawkins is arrogant, but arrogance doesn't mean you are wrong. I happen to think that Dawkins is on the right track. Note that I don't "believe" he is correct. That's silly. He has many points of view. Some wrong.

I read many books. I read many in the area of religion too. I'm happy to be told about any work which adds to my understanding I how I and others perceive the world. It is a fascinating place.

>David,
>
>I disagree. Name one. The troble here is that we presume that man is able to understand everything that can or could be known. That's a presumption of omniscience and I dare say that man is not omniscient. <g> Not to mention extremely arrogant.
>
>In addition to the energy it also requires intelligence. For example, all the experiments are, well, experiments and that includes the person who sets it up - ie. intelligence. Random events? Nahh, they don't happen. Statistically impossible and improbable. Besides, in addition to some random event you'd need the ability to propigate (ie. replicate) which requires a level of complexity that simply doesn't ever happen, not to mention the knowledge and will to propigate. You might get a few amino acids by striking it with a lightning bolt but there's a huge next step to that amino acid having the internals that are required to survive and propigate.
>
>I'm comfortable that we might disagree but I would, in turn, suggest that you read one of many many books that totally refute books such as "The Blind Watchmaker". Perhaps we should just both be comfortable that each of us thinks that the other has had our sight made ..er.. opaque at best <g> by our positions...
>
><g>
>
>I don't want to get into a shouting match. I'll be happy to provide you with as many scientific references as you'd like but only if you wish.
>
>Best,
>
>DD
>
>
>
>>PMJI but complex systems can be created by simpler systems without any guidance. It's happening all the time. Typically it just requires some energy input, eg the sun shining on the earth, power going into a computer.
>>You really need to read the classic "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, although it's not a book I imagine you will enjoy.
>>
>>
>>>Michael,
>>>
>>>That's why atheism seems so dumb to me. And extremely arrogant as well. Imagine... The finite declaring that the infinite does not exist.. The small declaring that there is no large. <g> It also argues agains evolution since it would then argue that a less complex mechanism is capable of creating a more complex mechanism. The interesting thng is that less complex mechanisms are able to create more complex mechanisms (just look at any machine shop to see this) but they cannot so do without an outside intelligence directing things. Evolutionists want the less-->more results but without one of the necessary ingredients - directed intelligence.
>>>
>>>Agnosticism I can understand, and I think many confuse the two, but really....
>>>
>>>I have heard that one human brain contains more "electrical" connections than all the computers in the world, and I tend to believe that is a true statement. Even then we don't use but a portion of what is available.
>>>
>>>Best,
>>>
>>>DD
>>>
>>>>I agree with you.
>>>>
>>>>Complexity/computational theory strongly suggests that a system cannot compute anything beyond it's own inherent complexity. Put in terms of people, it is impossible to understand anything that is intrinsically more complex than our own brain. There will always be things that we do not, & cannot, understand. Maybe, if we are lucky & evolution moves us in the right direction, our brains may become more complex allowing us a greater insight to the universe & the interactions of all within it. That is, if those who believe they understand everything now don't destroy us first.