...By contrast, you seem to keep adding to my words, "You were stating emphatically that pursuing the search for a naturalistic solution is pointless"--when I said nothing of the sort; those are your words, not mine ...
I'll assume you wrote this before reading my 'crossed wires' post in which I explained the misunderstanding?
All is clear now and I have nothing to add.
T_M, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve anymore? My position on OOL is the same as that of the research community and when the consensus position/opinion concerning OOL changes amongst that community, my position will change in lockstep.
So you'd do better to take your arguments to those researchers....
Will you be addressing my #102 or do you plan to continue side-stepping?
Your question assumes it took millions of years for the sedimentary to find itself where we see it and it has been said the flood was not only water coming down, but up as well. Great drainage occurs when all of the water either goes back into the earth or evaporates, having that much water flow into the earth must have also been an earth-moving event. You assume much.
Does examination of the flood account in Genesis really belong in a topic on OOL research? Better if you post it here? ....
https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/flood-geology-critique-by-a-yec-flood-geologist
This is the problem with having several discussions on related subjects running simultaneously because it's easy to lose track of what's been posted where.
T_M, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve anymore? My position on OOL is the same as that of the research community and when the consensus position/opinion concerning OOL changes amongst that community, my position will change in lockstep.
So you'd do better to take your arguments to those researchers....
But it's really not, but I get the whole self-preservation thing, so you're right, there's no point in continuing to discuss it
T_M, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve anymore? My position on OOL is the same as that of the research community and when the consensus position/opinion concerning OOL changes amongst that community, my position will change in lockstep.
So you'd do better to take your arguments to those researchers....
I am talking to you not the researchers they study and view evidence to come to the conclusions that they reach. What they do not do is read something someone else says and think that ends all the questions and no more explanations is required which is what you are doing by not thinking about this yourself.
There are several different opinions on these topics you choose none of the above.
"not thinking about this yourself" - where we lack specialist knowledge, it behoves us to look to those who do possess it. That's all I'm doing.
What's so hard to understand?
"not thinking about this yourself" - where we lack specialist knowledge, it behoves us to look to those who do possess it. That's all I'm doing.
What's so hard to understand?
You don’t point to any knowledge to justify your stance, you simply eluded to something you have not showed to justify your stance. When you do point to something it isn’t anything that is definitive but cannot be explained by facts just opinions.
When we look at what we know and experience when looking at instructional processes in the here and now those are always setup by a mind. Outside of wishful thinking 🤔 that can not be explained with only a material explanation alone, but even without cause you choose to look for one. That isn’t a factual belief it’s a philosophical hope that your worldview is correct.
Unlike you I have quite a lot of respect for the scientific community and if researchers persist with their line(s) of research then I assume they still hold some hope of success, however unlikely that may seem.
If those researchers don't care to step beyond that line, neither do I.
I wonder if it's possible for @TruthMuse to acknowledge that @stephen_33 might have a valid point for not rushing to abandon a naturalist position given the historical success of naturalism at explaining things, and I wonder if it's possible for @stephen_33 to acknowledge that @TruthMuse (and non-atheists in general) might have a valid point when it comes to the origin of life. Hmmmm.... 🤔
I wonder if it's possible for @TruthMuse to acknowledge that @stephen_33 might have a valid point for not rushing to abandon a naturalist position given the historical success of naturalism at explaining things, and I wonder if it's possible for @stephen_33 to acknowledge that @TruthMuse (and non-atheists in general) might have a valid point when it comes to the origin of life. Hmmmm.... 🤔
What's a 'non-atheist' when it's at home?
But I find this problematic "TruthMuse (and non-atheists in general) might have a valid point when it comes to the origin of life", not least because as a YEC he clings strictly to scripture, especially (in this context) the book of Genesis and I can no more accept that account of the emergence of life as being 'valid' than you can.
Of course if you have something else in mind, please elaborate?
My understanding of where we are is this - research into OOL continues despite a number of formidable obstacles but it's not possible to conclude that the search is utterly hopeless.
That leaves us with an unsolved mystery but no clear alternative paths of investigation to follow. That's to say we can no more say how life came into existence than we can say how it didn't.
My understanding of where we are is this - research into OOL continues despite a number of formidable obstacles but it's not possible to conclude that the search is utterly hopeless.
That leaves us with an unsolved mystery but no clear alternative paths of investigation to follow. That's to say we can no more say how life came into existence than we can say how it didn't.
Yet you reject some ideas about how it all came together, nonetheless do you not?
I don't reject ideas that are founded on solid evidence. Part of the trouble is that what one person regards as 'solid evidence' is not necessarily what another person does.
For example, the arrangement of fossils in rock strata provides solid evidence that life evolved over geological time but you utterly reject that perfectly sensible and sound conclusion. So don't bother trying to lecture me because I don't accept by default that a conscious creator must have been responsible for the emergence of life by virtue of its sheer complexity.
Such a conclusion cannot be stated with any confidence.
My understanding of where we are is this - research into OOL continues despite a number of formidable obstacles but it's not possible to conclude that the search is utterly hopeless.
That leaves us with an unsolved mystery but no clear alternative paths of investigation to follow. That's to say we can no more say how life came into existence than we can say how it didn't.
That's actually not true.
Besides, we don't base conclusions on what might happen with future research but based on the current evidence to date which would seem to indicate that it is impossible for life to come from non-life.
Nor is yours the correct standard to use for empirical confirmation: no one is required to accept a hypothesis as true until someone can demonstrate that the hypothesis can't possibly be true. That's completely backwards. The burden of proof is on those who support a hypothesis to convince the rest of us, and that hasn't been done. So no one is under any obligation to accept abiogenesis, nor is the burden of proof on me to demonstrate that abiogenesis can't possibly be true. If you believe abiogenesis is true, then the burden of proof is on you to convince the rest of us. Not the other way around.
I don't reject ideas that are founded on solid evidence. Part of the trouble is that what one person regards as 'solid evidence' is not necessarily what another person does.
For example, the arrangement of fossils in rock strata provides solid evidence that life evolved over geological time but you utterly reject that perfectly sensible and sound conclusion. So don't bother trying to lecture me because I don't accept by default that a conscious creator must have been responsible for the emergence of life by virtue of its sheer complexity.
Such a conclusion cannot be stated with any confidence.
What you see me pushing is agency/mind over mindlessness.
No, what I see you pushing in a number of related topics is the 'indisputable authority of scripture', which forces you to deny common-sense conclusions such as the evolving nature of fossilised lifeforms in rock strata.
Are you denying this is the case and that you regard the Book of Genesis as practically a Creationist text book of how the Cosmos and life came to emerge?
maybe
And with all due respect to you hello, that seems like a non-response response because you're failing to address the point I was making.
tbwp has been quick in the past to admit that the origin of life is not within his specialism and when he makes an argument for a non-naturalistic origin, he's doing so as a non-specialist.
I'm most certainly not one so I have to rely on those who are expert in the field of OOL and they clearly still hold out hope which suggests they haven't abandoned a natural cause. And if anyone might be said to know 'best', isn't it those researchers?
What expert do you listen to and what was the argument/hypothesis causes you to take that stand? Are you just hoping without cause!
You've asked variations of this question so many times you clearly haven't understood my replies, so let me try a different approach....
As I've stated many times I have no specialist knowledge when it comes to the search for how life emerged - what I know about cell biology can be written on a postage stamp. So what are people like me to do if they want to understand current thinking on the subject?
It seems obvious to rely on those who do have a lot of specialist knowledge and that naturally means the trained scientists who carry out research into this very subject. But relying on the views of individual scientists can be tricky because as in any area of complex research there may be individuals with inaccurate opinions, so it's more sensible to look to the consensus of what researchers believe as a whole.
This is why I usually refer to the 'body' of OOL researchers rather than any particular scientist. Those who study problems of this kind presumably believe there's a solution to be found and while that situation continues I'll rely on them to keep me (and the world) informed about progress.
I'm well aware of the contrary argument(s) by lone scientists but I plan to be guided by the position of researchers as a body.
I've been working in R&D for the next Gen CPU and manufacturing of communication radios for over 20 years the complaints I have been bringing up have to do with processes, your stance seems to be others don't believe it so you don't. Difficult to reason against that since there is nothing there to talk to outside of there those who have different opinions. That alone is sort of meaningless since no matter what side of the fence you are on, that will be true no matter what. Not much of an iron-clad reason, it is like saying the sky is blue so I don't believe, the sky is blue isn't something that we can test for truth, we can only acknowledge that the statement is true which has nothing at all to prove a point since its true no matter what.