Evidence for creation discussed

But you hven't examined that either! If we're talking about the minutiae of cell chemistry and the complex interactions between the various components of organisms, I think I might know slightly more than you but we're both unqualified to make generalised conclusions about the origin of life.

In life we all defer at various times to those we believe possess greater expertise than ourselves. Whether it's a medical opinion, crossing a bridge over a deep gorge or climbing aboard a plane, we place trust in others to have a superior understanding of the detail of the subject.

Medical specialists get diagnoses right and avoid harming their patients the great majority of the time, bridges collapse only rarely and air travel is astoundingly safe.

If we are prepared to trust such people with expert knowledge in their fields, why not those in the field of OOL? Until researchers, as a collective body, announce that no natural cause of the emergence of life on earth can ever be found, I will continue to believe that a natural cause is at least possible.

I understand that there're some dissenting voices but that's to be expected in a field as problematic as this.

You know what I have examined and how? I'm not a chemist but have spent a great deal of time in R&D so I am quite aware of the problems of design, I'm not a programmer but I have written several program scripts to do complex things that I wanted to be done so I didn't have to do them by manually, I'm quite aware of the some of the basic issues involved, so there is something in my experiences I draw on, I'm not just popping things off the top of my head simply because other people believe something.

Exactly what in the OOL field are you pointing to, it has been explained they don't know and have nothing to point to for results outside of wishful thinking.

Do you have any idea of how complicated cell chemistry is? Taking a fixed view of what is and isn't possible by natural means implies a considerable level of specialist expertise, which neither of us has. The question of whether 'design' had to be involved is separate from any consideration of human design.

And I think it's possible to read far too much in to the metaphor of 'coding'? There is only the interaction of molecules according to the natural chemical processes of bonding at an atomic level.

Despite a few dissenting opinions, no one has demonstrated that a natural causation for life is impossible. The only thing we know with certainty thus far is that all attempts have failed.

My position on the issue is the same as the broad body of researchers into OOL and related fields. When they change their position so shall I.

This is where I think your stance sounds good and is very fuzzy in what you said. No one has proven natural causes is impossible, exactly what is it you think you need to see for that to be true? As it stands all of time could elapse and that bar could still be there waiting for who knows what. That can only be matched by your standard of who are the broad band of OOL researchers, are they a fixed set of names, or do the people change as time goes by, and what do they have to do to meet your criteria?

I have referred to the 'dead-end' of the alternative view of abiogenesis before. Discounting out of hand a natural cause for life takes us no further that I can see.

* Human beings are not all-knowing and our scientific understanding is very far from being complete.

Why accept any knowledge on any topic if we must know everything to know anything?

"Why accept any knowledge on any topic if we must know everything to know anything?"

I need you to explain what that means. There're many things we know with great confidence but also many we do not know. It is not necessary to "know everything to know anything"

Your hesitation in looking at mindfulness and mindlessness concerning the universe and life, if you are going to say not everything has been exhausted in looking for a natural explanation, why don't you treat everything with the same level of skepticism?

I didn't know I had (hesitated) but if you mean by "mindfulness" what I think - the possession of mind, the experiencing of various mental states, then I know only that I have those. But I can infer that you probably do as well.

Human beings experience consciousness. As far as I know no one can explain what that is so having a productive discussion about it is difficult.

@tbwb10 was quite good at showing the difficulty in this moving from dead dirt to being able to experience consciousness is a grand undertaking which was what I was talking about. Can these types of things spring up naturally through a mindless process without goals, plans, desires, and knowledge of success or failure? Consciousness is as much a part of the universe as chemical reactions, and both chemicals and consciousness don't just pop into existence without a cause nothing does that has a cause.

"@tbwb10 was quite good at showing the difficulty..." - past tense?

But since we don't know what consciousness is, beyond our personal experience of it, we're not in a position to make sweeping pronouncements about it. And let's recognise that other ape species seem to possess consciousness as well to some degree!

An ape may never play a game of chess, write a sonnet or discuss philosophy but there is evidence that they have some self-awareness.

"Consciousness is as much a part of the universe as chemical reactions"- a baseless claim? There is no reason to think that anything was conscious before the evolution of conscious creatures on earth - there is no evidence for it.

Is consciousness a part of the universe as a chemical reaction a baseless claim? Do you think that everything in this universe came in from different sources, different means, if it is here it is as much a part of the universe as everything else, why wouldn't it be? You will have to explain that reasoning!

@stephen_33 wrote: "Am I correct in thinking you reject the conventional form of modern evolutionary theory as understood by Biologists No and believe in 'interventions' during evolution made by this same posited creator? Science can never rule out the possibility of undected interventions, nor can it posit or demonstrate them. 

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. It's the fundamental difference of category that is problematic. Just as some see a problem with a nonphysical infinite Mind creating anything physical, so also it's difficult to see how nonphysical mind can derive from physical  where did it come from?"

Even the simplest life forms (cells) exhibit what can be termed sentience. Autopoiesis theory discusses this a lot.

TruthMuse - Unlike you I'm not claiming anything other than that consciousness certainly appears to arise from the activity of the brain (human or otherwise). Probably as a result of the complexity of such brains. The fact is we don't understand what it is so speculation isn't particularly useful.

But remember that at least once in every 24 hours, consciousness ceases for every one of us!

tbwp - as I understand it 'divine intervention' and evolutionary theory are incompatible. That's why I asked.

Can you define what mind is, what manner of thing? How it emerges or manifests itself? I don't think anyone can, so making broad statements about how it came to be seem unhelpful.

Science does not allow divine intervention a priori. Regarding the rest, we'd have to go deeper into Antony Flew's arguments and the other philosophers he cites.

So to believe in divine intervention is to tacitly reject evolutionary theory - that's what I thought. Isn't it your position that divine intervention took place over the course of evolution?