Does it matter

Show me the evidence that isn't just a "just so story" wrapped up in something factual like a fossil and the story someone has for it. I don't believe in evolution on a macro level there isn't anything anyone can point to that can show anything remotely possible that suggests blind chance and necessity can create a new feature like limbs, wings, or fins while maintaining existing systems, it just isn't there to deny.

On a smaller level like altering existing features slightly yes, but that isn't doing anything new, it is simply altering what is already there. The more we learn about the genetic code, the more we see and understand how it works, as I've pointed out before there is information processing taking place, we only know that because we can create similar things digitally so we know what is required and we see them in life. The NATURAL source for code is the mind, so I'm not asking for the acceptance of the grandiose set of lucky rolls of the dice to move in a life-friendly manner.

This is an obsession for you I think? But nothing changes the fact that evolution is the best model we have to explain the diversity of living things on the planet, both now and in the past.

And if 'planned' by some unspecified 'mind', how are we to make sense of the huge number of species that have gone extinct over the past 600 million years? This postulated 'mind' of yours populates the world with a multitude of different types and then allows 98% or so to die out.

The Dinosaurs as a group were spectacularly successful and many Biologists agree that it's unlikely mammals would have got very far (certainly not to humankind) unless an enormous rock had fallen out of the sky.

Someone please make sense of all of that for us!

Not sure why you think it’s the best model since what we see in nature doesn’t conform to the theory only to a worldview.

I'm simply laying out the counter-natural narrative and asking does it make any sense?

I am sorry, what? Counter-natural means an unnatural narrative where you actually accept something not natural? Please explain.

Is it so unclear? Ok, if the natural explanation for life is one that relies only on natural processes, without any 'mind' behind it, the non-natural one can be said to rely on an unspecified 'mind'.

Is that clearer?

No, not clear, if we now acknowledge a mind, it is the one responsible, making it a very specific one. Even if we say at the moment not a specific one that is identified, we still must rule out mindfulness.

Beyond (supposedly) creating a rudimentary 'proto-lifeform', what is there that we can say with any specificity about that 'mind'?

Nothing that I can think of.

And as for this "if we now acknowledge a mind", we're speculating about a purely hypothetical agent that supposedly created the very first rudimentary lifeform.

That isn't the same as acknowledging it.

Do you think that dating the universe is not also purely a hypothetical undertaking on our part where we take readings in what we see in the here and now, then apply them so that we can come up with an age, that is somehow different than looking at what we see in the here and now as actual causes for functionally specified complex integrated systematic work and saying when we see it elsewhere the same reason for it must be true?

So as well as denying evolution, you deny the ability of scientists to be able to calculate the age of rocks, the Earth and the Universe within certain limits?

This really isn't going anywhere.....

You put too much importance on evolution as if that is all there is to science, it was a wonderful theory, but it does not explain what we see with what we see. I never said that I can prove the age of the earth one way or another, I cannot even if you and I were both all in on the Bible we would not be able to say how old it is.

From a scientific perspective, if the question of how the diversity and variation of living things today and throughout history (as given in the fossil record) is being discussed, evolution is the only thing to consider. So you can't attach too much importance to that!

And when it comes to calculating the age of very ancient things (e.g. our planet) there're good and reliable science based techniques for doing that. When scientists say they've arrived at a figure of 4.543 billion years, they're not guessing and they're not saying there's a huge variation in estimates.....

"Earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50 million years. Scientists have scoured the Earth searching for the oldest rocks to radiometrically date"

So that would give 4543 million +/- 50 million

or: 4493 to 4593 millions of years.

To argue with such estimates you practically have to argue with the rate at which radioactive isotopes decay and they're often described as 'nature's clocks'.

I see design, that requires a mind as I have pointed out countless times. The question isn't for me is evolution real, can mindlessness accomplish this or not, the reason being it is perfectly reasonable that alteration built into the process could accomplish the same thing through time or all at once. You keep attempting to use long lengths of time as an argument for evolution, long lengths of time add nothing to the question outside of dismissing out of hand a single creation event where it all happened at once. If it is impossible to do under mindless conditions no amount of time you have will be able to overcome those odds. I don't argue about time, I stick to the process, as I said you can type out a paragraph in 3 months, OR in a minute looking at the paragraph cannot tell me how long it took you to write it.

The problem of how life first emerged is quite separate from how lifeforms became so diverse, let's remember? Evolution relates only to how that first rudimentary lifeform developed into so many other types.

"it is impossible to do under mindless conditions no amount of time you have will be able to overcome those odds" - no one, not even you, can claim the authority to make such a claim.

No, in a lab before any experiment takes place the proper conditions have to be created to work in or what is the point? Even in manufacturing while mass building devices can start, the very first thing before a task can even be said to begin, is when all of the parts are delivered to the floor and the equipment is calibrated and up and running. I'm not pushing rudimentary life I am saying design, what would the "rudimentary" have to do with anything, If you think it is REQUIRED it starts simply and becomes more advanced, why?

I can say that doing something where each part of the process has odds exponentially against it from occurring randomly, and there are countless acts, each having to be done either at the same time or in proper sequence with precise timing all mixed that rates IMPOSSIBLE and not feel like you or anyone else can show its possible, not even remotely probable especially if you want to claim it happen under a rock or in a pond.

Given the current very imperfect state of understanding and the considerable doubt that surrounds the subject of how life first emerged, no one on Earth has the authority to make the kinds of emphatic claims you've been making. Researchers in the field certainly don't.

You claim to have certainty where there is none!

Saying you don't know about some aspects is not a reason to reject what we do know, we know how information processing occurs since we do it all of the time by putting thought into it.

That's your personal opinion. If it was a widely held belief we'd expect to hear it voiced much more publicly but it isn't.

Governments and other institutions that fund reseach into abiogenesis wouldn't waste such sparse funding if it was generally believed that it could never bear fruit. Clearly the best informed people in this field do not share your position.

It's the case that we cannot rule out that an entirely natural cause for life will eventually become apparent. We do not know enough at this point.

Every single opinion out there is a personal opinion are you are running a poll for how many actually believe what you say they do? Can you back that up or are you just going on faith?