Evidence for creation discussed

Why do you think you have to defer to another you can reason for yourself, you have critical thinking skills. There are very sharp people on both sides of these discussions and debates men and women in science. 

If a valued member of your family fell seriously ill would you encourage them to reason for themselves and diagnose their own condition, or defer to the very much greater knowledge and diagnostic skill of a professional medical specialist?

How can you fail to understand my point that I don't have anything like the level of expertise and knowledge of specialists in a particular field of scientific research?

Am I correct in thinking you reject the conventional form of modern evolutionary theory as understood by Biologists and believe in 'interventions' during evolution made by this same posited creator?

You do seem to be suggesting that something as exquisite as the power of reason could not have evloved by natural means and yet it certainly wasn't exhibited by the first single-celled creatures. So where did it come from?

You are making a judgment call, you are using your reasoning, you are picking the doctor with the diagnosis that you prefer and as long as you don't get specific as to which doctor and why you are staying with this guy, you never have to take ownership of your choice, but are without a doubt making one.

What? If you need a medical diagnosis is that what you do, visit one doctor after another after another until you find the one with the 'right' opinion of what's wrong with you?

Seriously?

Remember, in the UK most people belong to a local NHS surgery and accept the diagnosis of whichever general practitioner they're allotted. I'm not sure how your medical system works but I very much doubt you're allowed to go to doctor after doctor.

But this is beside the point - do you accept that your doctor knows more about medical conditions than you do? Do you accept that professional physicists know more about Physics than you?

As I was saying if all you are doing is saying “some” scientists believe this that isn’t saying anything, at least with a specific doctor you could reason. There are Nobel prize winners on both sides of of these discussions, so if you are not critically looking at this yourself you are just seeking confirmation bias, who agrees with me. Specific scientists have specific statements that can be examined vague unsourced references have nothing to discuss.

I thought about deleting my last but in case you stephen_33 saw it I thought I'd just say this. Sorry, I apologize for making this about you, my bad, I was wrong to do that, we should be discussing the topic not each other.

Imagine this scenario...

Strawberries have been plentiful and cheap this year and you've been indulging yourself. You develop a rash and consult your doctor. He says he's seen a number of similar cases recently and diagnoses 'strawberry rash' caused by a mild allergic reaction. A blood test later supports this diagnosis.

Are you really going to say to them 'but doctor I'd sat next to a heavily pregnant woman on the train and my holy book says this is to be avoided as all manner of diseases may be caught. Doctor, can I persuade you to change your diagnosis?'

Surely you'd appreciate that your doctor's professional opinion carried considerably more weight than either your own, or some dogmatic belief of your particular religion?

Not at all, there's nothing wrong with self-examination. I support the scientic method exactly because it's so self-critical, that's its strength.

Conclusions are based on where the evidence points, not on what happens to be culturally (or religiously) popular.

But where the body of 'origin-of-life' researchers as a whole stands at this moment in time I'm not entirely certain but until I hear them state that a natural cause for abiogenesis has been completely refuted, I'll remain open minded and defer to their superior knowledge.

And as I've already stated, I don't see that settling on a conscious creator moves us forward in any way. For me it makes the puzzle of life considerably more tortuous.

Then you should look through the telescope and watch the link at the beginning of the thread.

"you should look through the telescope"- different thread?

It is a good point no matter what thread it is in.

@stephen_33, 

You are correct that "science deniers" need to look at the evidence, but you need to be careful you don't become a science denier yourself with your repeated:

"But where the body of 'origin-of-life' researchers as a whole stands at this moment in time I'm not entirely certain but until I hear them state that a natural cause for abiogenesis has been completely refuted, I'll remain open minded and defer to their superior knowledge."

No stephen_33, that's a cop-out. You already know where the majority of OOL researchers stand on abiogenesis: they believe it but can't scientifically prove it. You're also trying to hide behind NON-scientific ultimatums: Science can NOT demonstrate that there is no natural explanation anymore than it can demonstrate that all things have a natural explanation.  Your "standard" is UN-scientific. It's certainly not evidence of being "open-minded," but just the opposite: you're refusing to acknowledge our current state of scientific knowledge on the subject.

And I honestly don't know why. Acknowledging that abiogenesis is assumed to be true but has not been empirically demonstrated doesn't make you a theist. It's just stating the truth of things, which you can do and still remain an atheist. Or is it that you're unwilling to acknowledge that your world view could have any weakness? 

Theists need to do the same and acknowledge the weaknesses in their views too!  But you can't really blame them for refusing to do so if you're going to do the same thing on your end.

I'm not aware that I've made any claims about abiogenesis other than deferring to those specialist scientists who've devoted careers to studying the minute details of the subject. If I have can you provide an example?

In that sense my opinion of the subject is only the position researchers seem to hold as a body, notwithstanding some dissenters, and criticising me for refusing to reject abiogenesis is only to criticise scientists themselves.

It should hardly surprise us that OOL researchers persist with trying to find a natural solution to the problem because the alternatives are barely credible.

But as always I will be guided by the best scientific conclusions because I'm not qualified to do otherwise.

This is sort of odd to me, how would you know if you are not looking into it yourself? If you are saying you leave it to others more qualified to figure out, what are you comparing anything to know what is the more reasonable? The scientific community is only united if you only look at all of those agreeing with you, otherwise, there is a need for further examination because it's not.

If one says I believe in the scientific consensus and they only look to those that agree with them, then will that ever change? We can always feel we are in the majority if we only accept things from those we agree with as acceptable.

"how would you know if you are not looking into it yourself?" - meaning?

Of course I can read up on the latest research and findings but I don't consider myself competent to reach independent conclusions on such a complex subject. In that sense I defer to those I trust to be more competent and better informed.

I acknowledge that there are alternative views but the mainstream of OOL research appears to hold to a naturalistic cause for life. When or if they announce as a body that they've abandoned that position I shall as well.

That's the best I can do.

So even if it makes no sense to you, even if it appears flawed, you will accept it because they know more than you?

Where did I say "flawed"?

And on "it makes no sense to you", many of the processes of my own body make no sense to me, in the sense that I don't understand them, but should that stop me seeking the opinion of a trained physician when I'm ill? Of course not. We all defer to some extent to those with greater training and better understanding of the subject.

Every time you drive across a bridge you give tacit acceptance that the engineers that designed and built it were qualified to do so safely.

Isn't it a little arrogant to presume that we know more than those who've spent decades studying such subjects in detail?

Is this analogy so very different...

For many years it's been observed that the motions of stars orbiting the centre of our Milky Way are anomalous. As distance from the centre of our galaxy increases, stars should be travelling less fast but careful measurements show they're faster than they should be. I believe this has also been observed in other glaxies.

The solution proposed is 'Dark Matter', an amount of invisible mass that causes stars to travel at greater speed in order to maintain their orbits. But no one yet knows what on earth this matter might be and it's believed it's of a type that's different from ordinary matter.

But why should we believe this? The nature of what this invisible matter might be is still pretty mysterious, so why should we accept it as an answer?

If you do accept it as a reasonable line of research aren't you doing much the same as those who trust in the expertise of OOL researchers, insofar as not yet ruling out a natural cause for life?

It isn't my non-belief (I prefer to not use atheist) in any conventional religion that makes me trust researchers in OOL, it's my incredulity at the alternative 'explanations'.

You are still choosing who to listen to how is that any less of a judgment call looking directly at the evidence yourself? The only thing you have done is remove yourself from the equation of understanding, for the ability to say some nameless group of people believe this not that.