I won't go another 20 rounds again talking about what we think went on millions or billions of years ago with what we see in the here and now. To promote a theory that some believe mindlessness can account for it all, while at the same time, they cannot talk about how it could possibly start and be creative in engineering new forms and features without an engineer.
A couple of observations - what we see buried within rocks is in its way a little like something laid out in a book with various groups of lifeforms contained within their own 'chapters'. These things tell their own story for those that have the open-minded understanding to read it.
So it's curious that you cling to the contents of one book while brushing aside the geological one but that's your choice.
On this: "To promote a theory that some believe mindlessness can account for it all..." - I'll admit that over the months of this and similar discussions I've come to realise the problems involved in finding a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life are considerably greater than I'd realised. Notwithstanding, I shall continue to look to those I regard as being best informed (on the planet) on the subject, the research community, to provide a lead and when they admit the search is hopeless, I'll accept that.
I'm someone who strongly believes that what we hold to be the case (our propositional beliefs) should be guided by the available evidence and nothing else. I try to be aware of my own biases and avoid holding prejudiced beliefs to the best of my ability.
So if anyone wants to explore the hypothesis of a non-natural cause of the origin of life I'm up for it but be warned because it's a much more open subject than some seem prepared to admit!
These things are talked about more than in just one book, don't kid yourself, your denial of that book is what the main reason you refuse to acknowledge the possibility?
I won't go another 20 rounds again talking about what we think went on millions or billions of years ago with what we see in the here and now. To promote a theory that some believe mindlessness can account for it all, while at the same time, they cannot talk about how it could possibly start and be creative in engineering new forms and features without an engineer.
A couple of observations - what we see buried within rocks is in its way a little like something laid out in a book with various groups of lifeforms contained within their own 'chapters'. These things tell their own story for those that have the open-minded understanding to read it.
So it's curious that you cling to the contents of one book while brushing aside the geological one but that's your choice.
On this: "To promote a theory that some believe mindlessness can account for it all..." - I'll admit that over the months of this and similar discussions I've come to realise the problems involved in finding a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life are considerably greater than I'd realised. Notwithstanding, I shall continue to look to those I regard as being best informed (on the planet) on the subject, the research community, to provide a lead and when they admit the search is hopeless, I'll accept that.
I'm someone who strongly believes that what we hold to be the case (our propositional beliefs) should be guided by the available evidence and nothing else. I try to be aware of my own biases and avoid holding prejudiced beliefs to the best of my ability.
So if anyone wants to explore the hypothesis of a non-natural cause of the origin of life I'm up for it but be warned because it's a much more open subject than some seem prepared to admit!
The difference between what you are suggesting is the thing I'm talking about is in the here and now and it is the exact same processes in play throughout all of life in time, unlike your theories about what is in the ground and why. I can say there is nothing outside of what we see that produces code that can do what we see outside of a great coder. Even with millions of dollars, great minds at work, and research for years, we still cannot do what life does. Yet some believe under a rock somewhere a mindless activity did it and that mindless activity is getting right even today.
In your observations, you have to assume there were no forces at play that also couldn't cause what we see, no series of events that we don't know about because no one observed them, you assume the only way that could happen is the way you say it did, you can believe that if you want but those are beliefs that cannot be shown true only believed in.