@smidlee
You still haven't provided a single proof that the creation of life wasn't a simple process. You are saying that literature is complex, but the origin of literature is writing, and that is anything but hard. I sense your not going to comprehend this unless I point you in the right direction. Egyptian hieroglyphics are pictorial representations of things found in their own environment. Basically the Egyptians didn't sit down one day, and create a Websters dictionary. They created their written language one word at a time. Thats all the written word really is built one word at a time, and distinctly punctuated by concepts like phonetics, punctuation, tenses, and so forth being added throughout history.
There is no way your going to get Shakespear in heiroglyphics, but Shakespear is what you get to once you start with simple pictures put on surfaces. Life being full of complex systems does not mean that it started out as a complex system. Nor does it mean that it had a complex cause. I invite you to reference Occam's Razor. When their are two theories, and I am being generous. Your trying to argue the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. Which isn't theoretical at all. I could conjecture anything, and argue lack of proof to the contrary is proof positive. Anyway Occam's Razor says that the best theory is the one that makes the least number of assumptions, and is still supported by evidence.
This is my hypothesis that a simple molecule introduced into a media can alter the properties of surrounding material into such a form that will support replication. This is a singular assumption. That a particular molecule can induce complexity by modifying the existing environment. I have proved that materials due to chemical, or physical properties can in fact do this, and generate structures of incredible complexity. Not just in volume, but in pattern. My theory has merit, because molecules doing this have been studied. For instance the Prion that causes Mad Cow disease modifies proteins that it encounters. The prion does not engage in direct self replication. Merely modification of other proteins into copies of itself.
Your theory which isn't really a theory firstly makes the assumption that their is an unnatural force. This has never been proven. That this force has a will, and profound intelligence. This hasn't been documented outside of a human. This unnatural force has supernatural powers. This has never been documented or proven. This force created all life obviously we have never seen a unnatural, smart, superpowerful being do anything. This isn't even testable, or even falsifiable. Just like any crazy thing I could cook up. I am counting at least four massive assumptions with no evidence for any of them, or evidence period for that matter. Not only that your starting from a position of absolute certainty.
I am making one assumption, and it is a very minor assumption. Based on a number of analagous examples. Your making four assumptions with nothing whatsoever. This would be technically considered Bullshit, and while I doubt that you have malicious intent to deceive. I do think that you have been deceived by others. You don't have a point beyond you want to put magic up against science, but the latter has produced verifiable results. While your magic has been the realm of conmen for millenia. You have to admit whether you like it or not that your arguing from no actual position.
By the by water molecules don't expand they line up into latices. The reason liquid water expands is due to the latice creating voids between the molecules, and this is a very peculiar property. Most materials actually shrink as they change phases from liquids into solids. Molecules do not shrink or expand. Though the density of a given amount of a substance can shrink or expand given the amount of energy it contains it doesn't mean the molecules are doing anything more then moving faster or slower.
Anyway you can test this all out for yourself in your own home in just a few minutes. Use a measuring cup, and put a cup of water in it. Then heat the cup in your microwave for a minute. Then look at the water. Did the water get lower in the glass? Well if water molecules really got bigger when they get cold it holds that they should get smaller when they get hot right? With all the moaning about my snowflake analogy. I would have thought that you would have you know bothered to at least go look up some simple information.
By the way we are only talking about the water ice found in our day to day lives. Water Ice has many phases most of which are actually denser then water. Though I am not going to go into that, but I would encourage you to just use a search engine. Oh what the hell your not going to start doing that now. Here is a link.
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ice.html
