"what we know" - that's the problem here because you seem to think you know all manner of things none of us yet know.
Example, you insist that something as complex as the first living entity cannot have emerged by natural processes but we do not know that is the case. Much better to be patient and wait for new discoveries in the field.
Well, show something with trillions of opportunities to go wrong that would fall out correctly.
If you are asking a biologist, you are asking the wrong person; a chemist is the one who knows how the chemistry works, and you have already rejected them. A biologist knows what happens when the system is up and running; they can spot anomalies and tell you what the systems in life do, but they cannot tell you how or why, any more than anyone can tell us what gravity, energy, and life are. They can explain what they do, no more than that.
I believe those who investigate the emergence of life are also Biologists. They're searching for a model of a complex self-replicating molecule that might have been able to adapt by degrees to its environment until it changed into something we think of as 'life'.
They look at established processes in play and may question what happened, but the chemical world looks at the chemicals and can tell you whether what they are saying is valid.
I'm not aware that it's the established view among Chemists that it's impossible for inorganic chemistry to transform into some form of rudimentary life by a process as yet undetermined.
The best informed professionals in these scientific disciplines do not rule out that possibility but you do?
I'm not aware that it's the established view among Chemists that it's impossible for inorganic chemistry to transform into some form of rudimentary life by a process as yet undetermined.
The best informed professionals in these scientific disciplines do not rule out that possibility but you do?
You are moving the goal posts now. There are challenges out there to refute claims to PhD chemist who disagree but go unanswered. The facts do not change, the wishful thinking moves on.
In what way? As always I'm pointing out that it's not possible to make emphatic statements about whether natural processes alone were or were not responsible for the emergence of life.
I haven't changed my position whatsoever.
The ONLY time we see functionally specified integrated systems with embedded dependent requirements are with a mind behind it. You want to go with the we don’t know everything defence. That is always going to true, we don’t know everyghing. At some point you either know enough to defend something, or forever go on saying you don’t know enough
I thought I'd ask Google AI:-
"is life so complex it cannot be due to natural processes?"
A) "Whether life is "too complex" to have originated and evolved through natural processes is a subject of intense, long-standing debate involving science, philosophy, and theology.
While critics argue that the extreme complexity of life indicates an intelligent designer, the vast majority of the scientific community maintains that natural processes—including chemical evolution (abiogenesis) and biological evolution—are sufficient to explain the complexity of life"
We're going around in the usual circle!
We are not going in circles; you actually have to be moving for that, and all you do is say no without a reason or justification beyond ‘we don’t know everything'.
I'm forming a reasoned opinion on the matter of life which is entirely consistent with the broad community of professional scientists engaged in research in the subject.
You're trying to attack that reasonable position by invoking the principles of intelligent design, a discredited movement that seeks to deny evolution.
I could claim by name a professional scientist engaged in research as well, but that does not add to the discussion at all when we are speaking about a disagreement. In a disagreement, there are going to be two or more sides, so suggesting there are some that you agree with does not add anything to the truth other than you are only looking at those you want to be right.
It is the evidence that matters, what we can touch, what we can know in the here and now. What do we see now that we can apply to the past, as something we know happens, so we can acknowledge it is happening now, so it too could have happened back then?
I have given you things, but you have not been able to show how something so complex can come together and do complex work. Therefore, out of chaos, material comes together to form one thing and then another, again and again, to build something that can take energy, capture, constrain, and direct it to perform highly complex functional work with very tight tolerances.
You use the ‘we don’t know’ as evidence for your views, but ignore that same argument when justifying your stance, as you do when you reject something. What we do know is that a mind can do it; we see that type of work done by minds all of the time, but you reject it even though we see it all of the time. We do know!
You hold the opinion that life is too complex to have emerged naturally. You're entitled to hold any opinion you wish but it is only an opinion.
My position is that we should be patient, wait for more research to be done and come to conclusions about the nature of the emergence of life as and when we have sufficient evidence.
All things we bring to the table will be opinions; you think your views are anything more or anything less? It isn’t that we have opinions that matter, but are they based on what is true, by true what reflects reality as it is.
This of all the molecules in the human body: how they came to be is a mystery, since each molecule is so utterly complex as an information processing piece of the puzzle, but even more so, their arrangement in the body, doing what they do when. We can see what is before us, and you want to suggest that, without a designer, this is possible.
The average human body contains approximately 7 octillion molecules (7 × 10²⁷ molecules).
But you haven't studied modern evolutionary theory I believe? The only study you've made is how to pour scorn on the theory I think.
Much more research is required to establish how life might have emerged from some rudimentary large molecule capable of self-replication.
Contrary to what you believe, the absence of an explanation leads only to a dead-end.
I can point to billions of examples of complex work, including replication that is not a small feat; you may someday find some.
It is not the absence that you are confronted with; it is knowing that what we know can build a complex, specified, integrated system in the mind. That absence of evidence is simply you searching for something that is not there.