Evidence for creation discussed

What I was asking can what we see in the processes in life come about naturally through unguided mindlessness without any intervention? We should be able to repeat the process without intervention if so, or it could be the best possible explanation among competing hypothesis, but that would require explanation as to why.

I believe abiogenesis is an unacceptable possibility the numbers and requirements simply make it inadequate for the job, I my opinion. Ask any direct question I will answer and if I am unclear ask clarifying questions. I don’t mind being direct.

"can what we see in the processes in life come about naturally through unguided mindlessness without any intervention?"

I am not qualified to say and neither are you!

You think it’s magical or something beyond normal human understanding?

If I showed you 200 quarters all laying in a row, right side up so all 200 quarters heads were showing in a perfect line. Then I said I flipped them all and incredibly they lined up with heads showing right side up, or I lined them up that way which is more acceptable? Do we need a specialist to do the odds? 

I think it's something beyond current understanding, certainly mine. But where there's doubt, isn't it wise to look to those with specialist knowledge, scientists who have devoted entire careers to trying to answer the question?

That's what I do.

If OOL researchers shared that view of the improbability of life emerging by natural means I very much doubt they'd continue.

I think it's an unrealistic representation of the problem.

You are still picking a side because there are scientist in both sides of the discussion and you are not going into this blindly you are still weighing the evidence to align yourself to a side.

You however are not justifying yourself why you did that, you are just saying others are feel the way you do. I guess that relieves you from justifying your stance while making one. 

As long as it is acceptable to wish upon a star and say someday someone will come up with something, there is no end to that.

Why is it so important to arrive at a settled conclusion on this question? Where's the urgency?

And come to that, where do you imagine refuting a naturalistic cause for life on earth gets us? It's still necessary to consider the emergence of life within the context of the development of the Cosmos and the evolutionary process.

As for dissenting voices within the body of OOL research:-

Fred Hoyle was a well respected Cosmologist and utterly opposed to the Bing Bang theory (ironically it was Hoyle who coined that name), so does that mean we should all have adopted his position?

Einstein believed in a static Universe and dismissed much of Quantum Theory out of hand.

The very best (individual) scientists can get things badly wrong! It's much less common for the broad community of scientists to make such mistakes however.

Everything in the universe becomes different if it was made with cause, versus indifference.

Such as?

* And let's be clear because this is solely about life itself, nothing else.

Pardon my not knowing, but what does " OOL " stand for? Would one or both of you explain it to me?

OOL = Origin of Life

Do you think what life is and why it is, isn't about life?

"Do you think what life is and why it is, isn't about life?" - what?

I was trying to make the point that if it should come to be accepted that life on our planet was caused by a non-specified, non-naturalistic agent of some kind, that's the limit of our new knowledge, nothing more.

I don't have a logical objection to life having been 'seeded' from elsewhere but that of course only pushes the question back a stage - what caused the agent (or event) that seeded life in the first place.

You don't have an explanation of the universe or life, in the first or second place.

I don't have to have an explanation at this time because we probably need considerably more data and research before such questions can begin to be answered.

There's no necessity to rush to poorly justified conclusions on such matters. Admitting at this point in time that we don't know is perfectly satisfactory.

Well than why don’t you want to watch the link at the start of this discussion since there isn’t anything that he could dispute since there is nothing to dispute being offered?  

"why don’t you want to watch the link at the start of this discussion"

Because the video is 90 minutes long and I strongly suspect it does little more than rehash many of the discredited arguments I've heard before?