Does it matter

To claim that you have such complete understanding of the conditions on the Earth some 4 billion years ago and what it takes for the most rudimentary self-replicating lifeform to emerge, is not convincing.

It's clear that you're driven by a zealous, religiously dogmatic desire to 'prove' in your own mind that life could emerge only as the result of an act of intentional creation. As far as I'm concerned the jury is very much out on the subject.

And admitting doubt but continuing to search isn't exactly a matter of faith.

I am not claiming knowledge outside of what we can see in the here and now that is you, when I say that a mind can produce functionally complex integrated systems because we with our minds do that, it isn't a hope that what I believe occurred billions of years ago without a good reason to make that claim as you have. You don't know what may have happened billions of years ago, but you hold that out as a buffer of what you do see in the here and now, blind faith.

Stating the fact of the matter - we do not know how life came to emerge is very different from claiming emphatically that because the issue is very complex, therefore the cause must have been an unspecified 'mind'.

The first is not dogmatic because it's a simple statement of where we are. Your position is dogmatic because you're claiming to have absolute knowledge of this issue, a form of absolute authority which you no more have than anyone else.

The point that we don't know how life emerges is critical to understanding the processes in life itself without that is no different than looking at human societies in today's world, without any clue as to human history and trying to come up with the rationale for why things are the way they are. Without a clear understanding of the whole, the pieces cannot be fully understood, to push a pure materialist unguided process must be the reason is just as dogmatic as saying only design could do it, and evidentially we see more evidence that is true in life than the other.

I'm not "pushing" anything, I'm merely saying there's insufficient evidence to judge one way or the other and it's best to wait until more data comes in.

You're the one pushing a creationist explanation which at this time is not justified.

This isn't going anywhere and there's no way we're going to persuade one another, so let's agree to disagree!

Not sure how you can say insufficient evidence to judge one way or another when all of the evidence says functionally complex integrated systems are all put together from minds, there isn't any evidence to suggest it could happen any other way, it is a slam dunk. If you cannot acknowledge all of the evidence there is now, exactly why claim you are looking for evidence when you are turning a blind eye and are being so dismissive of what we know now?

Would you cite any scientific organisation you want in support of your claim for "functionally complex integrated systems" can only come into existence due to the deliberate act of a 'mind'.

Biologists (as a body) most certainly don't seem to agree with you! And non-specialists should be guided by such professionals I think. I certainly am.

I spent 20 years working in R&D for CPU, it is a life time of experience and you are quite welcome to find a SINGLE example of my being wrong about this!

Quote your biologist please!

I'm not referring to a single Biologist, I'm talking about Biologists as a whole!

Wow, you can speak for every Biologist?

Show me a statement issued by any organisation of Biologists that they believe life could not have emerged by any natural process, because that's what I'm talking about.

Is there such a thing?

I don't believe that they talk about such things you are the one with the burden of truth, by such things specified functionally complex integrated systems. You are claiming to speak for them, so quote them.

I don't need to. The fact that research continues into the origin of life says all we need to know about the position of professional Biologists. Clearly they believe a natural cause can be found.

And until researchers come to the conclusion that a natural cause is not possible, the default position has to be that we do not yet know the answer.

You are speaking for other people's motivation, as well as what they believe, and if you cannot produce some reason that confirms those things, you are saying nothing.

This is about all I have to say at this point....

Until researchers come to the conclusion that a natural cause is not possible, the default position has to be that we do not yet know the answer.

Over and out!

You talk out of both sides of your face, on one side, we can know nothing because we don't know everything, but on the other side, those guys know, even though you cannot show that they believe what you claim. So your bottom line is not providing anything that supports your views, you cannot articulate anything from your point of view, so you push off to some time in the future with a maybe, or claim you speak for all biologies, which is not even reasonable, just noise.

Until researchers come to the conclusion that a natural cause is not possible, the default position has to be that we do not yet know the answer.

Until researchers conclude, exactly who is a researcher that you think may one day hold the secret knowledge that can enlighten the universe as to the distant past or the unseen future?

Right now I'm not convinced you even know what questions to ask let alone could recognize an answer if it were not to your liking.