Fetal Development

Accept your definition of natural is not what we see taking place in nature. You cannot point out how what you think occurred “naturally” by anything we see today in our studies of nature.

You are relying on evolution of the gaps, so you are suggesting something supernatural took place and is still taking place.

These are worldview issues and all we have to go on is how realistic is the narrative we agree with. You can punt, claim ignorance, suggest others agree with you or you them, you just can’t justify your claims beyond evolution of the gaps.

In the case of biology and the processes of human development from conception the speed of countless cellular division into fully formed human.

Something that is that complex, doing that much work, executing with a high degree of precision, you think that at random, an unguided alteration could occur anywhere at any place, through evolution would be able to make new functions and forms and not screw up the entire process?

A lot of things are going on in our birth, to screw up something early in the coding could add or subtract from what is necessary down stream, screw up late all the major things are done.

What natural process do you think would make it a reasonable to adjust life on the fly without greatly damaging it?

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Heard that before? Much the same can be said of those with a strong religious belief because it seems as if nothing can exist without the intervention of some 'creator'.

You do realize there are trillions upon trillions of independent programming activities in each human life, each has to occur from the moment of conception to a fully formed human being? From each cell's internal activities to cell division, that means the formation of liver cells, skin, nerves, and on and on each taking place where they need to be, becoming what they need to be, to do what is required, in a systematic integrated fashion. You credit all of that, to chance and necessity, and think it is all-natural processing to accomplish this, in the face of entropy and against the natural order of the second law of thermodynamics, this is natural to you?

In an undirected process, you give credit to trillions of specified processes occurring is natural, really?

It is a mistake to describe any natural process, or system of such processes, as being dependent on 'programming'. That by itself prejudices any explanation that might emerge.

It's one thing to make inferences from a limited amount of knowledge, another thing to try to form firm conclusions from what is not known.

We call it the genetic code for a reason. The natural cause of code is what?

Do you call what takes place in life magic, or do you simply reject the concept of code due to the implication of what that implies?

If what you claim (ad-nauseum) was held to be a slam-dunk argument for a 'creator', we'd expect to hear it from all the main religions of the world, wouldn't you say?

But when I listen .....

..... all I hear is silence!

Christianity and Judaism scripture both speak to it, you cannot come up with an Atheistic view about how and why life is made. You cannot even explain how or why life exists, and neither do you acknowledge the code directing its processes of operations. There is always room to deny what is right in front of you, nothing can force you into accepting something you don't want to.

Do you have an explanation of how trillions of independent operations are all integrated into life?

It's true that there're a number of questions we're not yet able to answer but you make the repeated mistake of thinking you can make emphatic claims based what is not yet known.

Think about this, again trillions of individual cells operate in an integrated systematic non-stop going on from the moment of conception till we die. These must operate properly or we run into things like cancer, various diseases, and formational issues. They had to come together to build things like our hearts, lungs, blood, and so on, then they had to operate together or else.

Have you ever designed two or more things to work together to do anything, we are talking about trillions of different cells in a life form, and as I said they started at conception, and going forward trillions of cells are generated into necessary cell types, to do specific functions and forms, and you think that this could occur without interference by happenstance under a rock or a pond?

It is the prevailing opinion among Biologists I believe that life originated as the result of natural processes. Beyond question, everything that followed the emergence of that 'proto-lifeform' most certainly resembles a natural process.

Deferring to those with vastly more understanding of an extremely complex subject is sensible!

Is it possible to state categorically that life could not have originated on Earth by itself? Much too early to say.

I don’t have a problem saying natural processes but I do believe when we say it, we are not saying the same thing.

Is it possible to state categorically that life could not have originated on Earth by itself? Much too early to say.

You think trillion upon trillions of precise information processing of highly complex specialized cells divisions for every single cell in life could be the product chance and necessity? The number of potential errors that could destroy life is even greater than the probability of success yet you maintain nothing directs and maintains success over failure?

And yet professional researchers, with vastly more understanding of the subject than the two of us combined, clearly do believe that a purely naturalistic explanation can be found.

So I ask again: Is it possible to state categorically that life could not have originated on Earth by itself? Much too early to say.

How would you know, seems to me that is an easy lazy way to avoid thinking for yourself, people with high levels of education fall on both sides of the spectrum. A mind is a terrible thing to waste as you have refused to use yours!

If coming to a reliable, informed opinion on some subject requires a vast amount of knowledge and understanding, of the kind only professional Biologists involved in cell biology research have, admitting that we are not in a position to reach an emphatic conclusion seems the sensible (and modest?) thing to do.

By contrast, Creationists seem to think they have all the information that will ever be necessary to reach an emphatic conclusion but they don't!

I'm bringing to your attention that which everyone knows, it is simply math, you can look up everything I have brought up yourself it isn't secret knowledge that only a select few have. That is the type of information you seem to imply others have, you reject anything not given by a professional Biologist, but you have rejected a professional Chemist so your criteria for acceptance and rejection are not due to professions alone. Calling some process natural should suggest it is a common thing found in nature, but that is not true with what you have promoted, and yet you don't move from your point of view when confronted with that.