From the outside

Do you think cells were formed from the outside meaning an agent acted up them? Do you think we were formed from the outside meaning an agent acted upon us too?

If Adam's body was indeed formed from the 'dust of the earth,' ( Gen 2 v 7 ), i would say both happened. {P.S. I believe Adam's body was formed from the 'dust of the earth.'

Me too

Or you might both take a course on cell Biology?

You have an opinion based on a class?

To clear up confusion first cell.

I think this question, or at least the discussion around it, has become pretty unproductive?

Quite why you insist on labouring it in one form or another escapes me.

It only unproductive as long as you hide behind statements like take a class or read of book, when you actually have to think and voice your reasoning things are not unproductive.

You are obsessive! Despite your desperate attemps it is not possible to say at this time that life could not have emerged by any natural means, known or unknown.

Therefore the only reasonable position is to say that we cannot daw a conclusion about this until more is known. End of discussion.

You cannot draw a conclusion; you have to point to what others think to avoid making one, that is not my fault that is all on you.

It's very unwise to try to form firm conclusions about some issue when in a state of doubt and ignorance.

Would you say that's the prudent position to take or not?

Ancient texts claim all manner of fantastic things but that doesn't mean we have to believe them. But on the claim that all life arose from the "stuff" of the Earth I think we may possibly agree.

You and I can err easily; no one disputes that, but we are talking about something foundational to everything, without exception, in life: deciding on what is and is not important, why this is this way and not that, and how things should be defined.

Choosing one explanation over another is simply PERSONALLY making up one’s mind on what is the most reasonable, outright deciding, but not making a choice is still making a choice. It is the most cowardly, unconvincing thing one can do; it is ignoring your abilities in weighing possibilities to surrender to fear in making a wrong choice and being held to it. While thinking not making a choice keeps you from consequences, it doesn’t.

Or, taking a different perspective, choosing to take an emphatic position long before that's possible is somewhat conceited?

The conceit being in the belief that you know all that needs to be known in order to reach the emphatic position. You don't!

For the best part of (?) thousand years people believed as fact that our planet was at the centre of all creation and for what was to them perfectly good reasons. So much so that their most learned men designed more & more torturously elaborate and complicated models to explain their observations.

It was obvious to them that the Earth was the centre of all things and they ridiculed (sometimes persecuting) those who disagreed.

I think you're pretending that there's nothing more to know and the picture is somehow complete and fixed. I don't agree and it seems many other people take the same view.

And whether you like it or not, choosing to believe that the Universe and/or life was created in some way advances our knowledge very little indeed. The nature of such a creator would probably remain an utter mystey for all time.

You say that like you know.

In what way is it inaccurate?

You know the nature of a creator. How?

All that we would know is that such a creator had sufficient power and ability to create what we can observe but no more than that - how would we know more?