Evidence for creation discussed

You have not answered anything, the only thing you have implied is that others think something so you don't have to think about it.

Delete your name from the post and this could be a YEC talking point on any number of issues!  ("Just because we don't have evidence for a global flood, doesn't mean we won't in the future"; "There are no real contradictions in the Bible, just apparent ones and unanswered questions that will resolve themselves and be 'answered in time'")

Seriously, what's to stop *anyone* from trying to save *any* view by appealing to what *might* happen in the future?  "We might find evidence in the future," "We might find answers to these questions in the future...."

You truly need to stop using this weak, failed tactic, which does nothing to advance your position, and which is little different from what YECs do when they don't have answers or evidence. If you're going to keep using it, then you can't criticize YECs when they do it too.

***Better is to honestly admit the strengths and weaknesses of one's position!

But I don't claim to have and I also see no need to try to answer such a question at this moment in time: Better to wait until more data is available.

As I keep pointing out, I'm not a spcialist in this field and have no expert knowledge of the subject. Even tbwp admits that what knowledge he possesses is not in the field of OOL.

None of us are compelled to form conclusions on complex subjects in which we have no expertise!

Are you seriously equaring belief in an entirely fictional 'global flood' with the belief in the existence of life itself and how it began? Sensible people disbelieve in an ancient flood because there's no reason to believe it ever happened.

But evidence of life is all around us, not to mention evident in us. Then the question is how did life emerge and on that question I choose to defer to researchers who are trying to answer that very question. As a non-expert that seems an entirely sensible position to take and involves no risks, unless you can show there's risk involved of some kind?

Your campaign against OOL research suggests you think they're thoroughly dishonest and deceitful, that the impossibility of a naturalistic explanation for life should be evident to a fool. At least that's the impression I get - am I wrong?

On the question of data and new ways of approaching problems, yet to emerge, remember that not so very long ago it was (logically) impossible to believe that the Earth was more than several hundred million years old because all calculations of the cooling of the planet from a red hot ball arrived at that result.

Then radioactivity and knowledge of the energy released during radioactive decay was discovered and suddenly it was possible to extend the age of the Earth to thousands of millions of years!

Our knowledge advances and sometimes in astounding leaps. What seems impossible today may yet be shown to be the opposite.

You can really misrepresent things when you put your mind to it - you're equating black to white!

I'm reserving judgment on a subject because I feel I possess insufficient specialist knowledge and admitting I don't know the answer to this question.

By complete contrast the YEC insistently makes a number of emphatic propositional statements which are either unsupported by available evidence, or are in complete contradiction to it.

This is not basing anything on the knowledge we currently have, instead, it is simply pinning your hopes on something we may have someday. That isn't science, that isn't looking at the data as is that is blind faith and wishful thinking. Moreover, you are not even reasoning anything out either, you hope someday, someone may tell you what to think, but that too isn't science. That isn't much different from someone who goes to church listens to a preacher but never checks out what he is being told, he just accepts it because a preacher told him.

Refusing to adopt a particular propositional position as I'm doing, is very different from adopting one (i.e. life must have been 'designed') when future discoveries may force you to abandon it.

I'm not claiming 'X' is true, I'm declining to make a judgment about 'X' because much better informed professionals have done that too.

You are making a judgment call on the topic simply by declining and deferring to others. That is taking a position, moreover you attempting to do it without justifying your stance. I don’t care what side of this or any other topic, there are always going to be smarter people on both sides of any debate. So saying that you defer to others is to take a stand without being to justify yourself! A mind is a terrible thing to waste!

Propositional statement: The origin of life has an entirely naturalistic explanation.

So in your mind there is no doubt that such a statement is false? It is now beyond all debate?

And there's no doubt in your mind that anyone who doesn't agree with your position is deluded, in self-denial or some form of charlatan?

Further, those scientists researching this subject must clearly be rogues/snake-oil salesmen for hoodwinking the general public in such a shameless way because they cannot possibly be blind to your 'truth'?

Well let us look at what is being proposed natural means that nothing unnatural is required to do that. When you buy something that requires instructions to put it together is there anything outside that which isn’t natural, the manufacturer built the pieces, you buy them, and follow the instructions. A chemical reaction is natural and following the instructions in life we get in life constraints to do what is required when. 

I believe that the most natural explanation is a great coder wrote life’s instructions to be followed, while the unnatural would be happenstance and good fortune stops it all to move towards entropy. 

I asked you a question....

Propositional statement: The origin of life has an entirely naturalistic explanation.

So in your mind there is no doubt that such a statement is false? It is now beyond all debate?

Do you hold that position or not? That's to say, do you consider scientists working in the field of OOL to be little more than charlatans, hoodwinking the general public (myself included) into believing it is yet possible to find a naturalistic explanation for something that was ~ beyond all doubt ~ designed?

Is that where you stand?

Do you think a mindless process can get passed moving to a state of equilibrium to constrained specifically functional systems natural, or unnatural? 

I 'think' that I'm not qualified to make such a judgment. And I think I'll look to those who spend their professional careers striving to untangle the mystery of life because their conclusions are much better informed than mine and guided by the latest results (such as they are).

I choose to not have a settled opinion on what caused the emergence of life on earth because we're all entitked to do that and to keep an open mind on matters that are as yet uncertain.

"A mind is a terrible thing to waste!" - yes it is which is why I hold off from forming a strong opinion on some subject when the evidence for doing so is incomplete or absent.

It is a very simple question if you don’t have the ability to answer why have any opinion at all?

"It is a very simple question" - only if you're able to exclude all possible explanations save one?

That's clearly what you believe but you believe it without reasonable justification. That's why I asked this question...

Propositional statement: The origin of life has an entirely naturalistic explanation.

So in your mind there is no doubt that such a statement is false? It is now beyond all debate?

Do you hold that position or not?

That's also a very simple question and you should be able to answer yes or no!

Well that is a quality that truth has to it that sets it apart from everything else. When eliminating other possibilities we move from impossible to possible by removing those answers that don’t work answering all the questions. One of the best ways to moving to the truth is finding binary choices that are yes no that eliminate some things.

More importantly the proposition has not been empirically demonstrated and its converse is not falsifiable, begging the question of whether it can be properly called science

I realise that very well but I was reacting to T_M's assertion/allegation that I was somehow wasting a perfectly good mind by refusing to reject abiogenesis out of hand.

That's why I was pressing him to do that himself but he seems strangely reluctant to come right out and say he believes that it's false and possibly dishonest (?) to hold the belief that life  emerged as the result of purely naturalistic processes.