But contrary to what we believe a living cell is a collection of non-living molecules(138). So the question is, what makes a living cell alive? There has to be a reason for everything, it is human nature to believe this, and rightly so, this is why it puzzles scientists that they can’t find any other reason other than God. Parker gives an example, if you saw a grocery list written in pencil on a paper would you assume the coded information (a) evolved by chance over a million years of years due to natural chemical attraction of pencil lead and paper or (b) was written with a purpose? It is more scientifically logical to conclude the DNA protein coding system was created. Consider another example of the same sort of reasoning. Imagine that you have just finished reading a fabulous novel. Wanting to read another book like it, you exclaim to a friend, “Wow! That was quite a book. I wonder where I can get a bottle of that ink?” Of course you wouldn’t say that! You wouldn't give the ink and paper credit for writing the book. You’d praise the author and look for another book by the same writer. By some twist of logic, though, many who read the fabulous DNA script want to give credit to the “ink” (DNA base code) and the “paper” (proteins) for composing the code of life. (139) And like Parker say “The meaning of a message lies with its creator, not its
But contrary to what we believe a living cell is a collection of non-living molecules(138). So the question is, what makes a living cell alive? There has to be a reason for everything, it is human nature to believe this, and rightly so, this is why it puzzles scientists that they can’t find any other reason other than God. Parker gives an example, if you saw a grocery list written in pencil on a paper would you assume the coded information (a) evolved by chance over a million years of years due to natural chemical attraction of pencil lead and paper or (b) was written with a purpose? It is more scientifically logical to conclude the DNA protein coding system was created. Consider another example of the same sort of reasoning. Imagine that you have just finished reading a fabulous novel. Wanting to read another book like it, you exclaim to a friend, “Wow! That was quite a book. I wonder where I can get a bottle of that ink?” Of course you wouldn’t say that! You wouldn't give the ink and paper credit for writing the book. You’d praise the author and look for another book by the same writer. By some twist of logic, though, many who read the fabulous DNA script want to give credit to the “ink” (DNA base code) and the “paper” (proteins) for composing the code of life. (139) And like Parker say “The meaning of a message lies with its creator, not its