If the natual world is all there is?

Most certainly not. If the broad swathe of specialists in this field concluded that we'll never arrive at a naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis, I promise that we'd know about it by now.

And that's a fact!

A fact, that is amazing.

Unless you can show that the broad swathe of specialists in this field believe something else - can you?

If you are just going to claim that others have a different view, and that is your whole point, why make it? Pick any position on any subject; I am sure some people agree and disagree. You are not saying anything new.

"others have a different view"? What others do you think I mean? The people I have in mind & to whom I defer, are the best informed specialists on the planet.

You can dismiss their well informed opinions on the subject if you wish but I think I'll continue to be guided by them.

You are putting a lot of faith into the hands of a very few people that you are willing not to question and think for yourself.

There you go with 'faith' again. Do you have no concept of trusting highly educated, trained & well informed professionals who make a particular field of scientific research their life's work?

Say a person is diagnosed with a life-threatening disease which is highly responsive to modern medical therapies, should they follow the best medical advice, invest in some 'magical beads', or get down on their knees & pray for a cure?

I sometimes think you'd say that all of them rely entirely on the person's faith!

Faith is defined by putting your trust in something, having great reasons to trust or poor ones doesn't change the fact that you are putting your faith in someone else.

Concerning life and medical treatment, the best care can still have someone end up dying; none of us are promised tomorrow, we get no guarantees here.

If you are trusting in any of them, you are putting your faith in them.

That's your opinion, it's not mine. Trust is very different to faith I think.

Look up the word 'faith' and you will see trust is part of the way it is defined. Our modern world has added the religious overtones to it, but it always means trust and reliability. Some trust has better reason than others, yes! Still it is what it is, if you are going to trust in something for answers that is putting your faith into it. It isn't a bad thing, it just is what it is. Blind faith is without reason, if you have no to reason to believe, yet do, that is blind and without cause.

Trust as I use it implies a reason to think that people with specialised knowledge, who have studied the subject for many years, are going to be considerably better informed than you or me.

Do you think you should remain silent and not express questions? 

There's nothing wrong with raising questions about anything but there may not be answers available.

But you go much further than merely raising questions, you seem determined to draw all manner of vaulting conclusions & from what? From an absence of knowledge about how life emerged.

We don't know really is the most intelligent thing we can say on the subject at the current time. Be content with it.

And if you can't be content, don't pretend that you can go any further with the process.

I tell you why I believe the way I do, for information within DNA and other things, I do have a cause. You accept conclusions and formulate your views, do you not, or is everything that you believe right just merely because someone else tells you to believe in it?

You're promoting a creationist agenda, not trying to become better informed about the subject.

As has been shown in at least one other related topic, you don't seem to understand what it is you're objecting to because you're failing to define what you mean.

I am promoting what I believe to be true as you do. I'm not attempting to make this about your motivation as you are doing with me.

That's what I wrote - You're promoting a creationist agenda!

Is this all there is to you? 

This dialogue isn't going anywhere & serves no purpose.