I think we have a very different understanding of what constitutes 'good reasoning'?
Claiming that because we haven't yet found a (natural) explanation for something that's extremely perplexing, therefore it must be beyond any natural explanation, is not good reasoning.
But an explanation for anything needs to be plausible and I don't find the Creationist one at all plausible within the context of current knowledge.
I don't think you are reasoning with evidence! Natural explanations should only be what we see occurring in nature, that is not chance and necessity! There is no way a cell could come about that way; moreover, once a cell is formed undergoes modifications in such ways new forms and features would occur, and messing with established code would surely lead to death. It is not a plausible theory period, the more we know, the less plausible it is! Living cells are too complex, systems within systems, and the composition of life's building blocks have astronomical complexity in their formation, let alone the work they do.
You need to face a simple, stark fact - when it comes to biological systems and cell biology, you're as poorly informed as I am. You are not in any position to state categorically that a particular outcome is impossible by natural means, any more than I am qualified to claim it did.
If highly educated and well informed people, who dedicate their entire professional careers to finding natural explanations for life, say that such a quest is far from hopeless, who are we to contradict them?
In a nutshell, if it's necessary to have very highly specialised knowledge in a subject to claim emphatically that something is not possible by any natural process and you don't possess such expertise, then you're not in a position to make emphatic assertions about it - period.
No, when you realize how much complexity is needed in just putting together life’s proteins before even looking into the information driving it all, blind chance and necessity comes up short.
There is no reason outside of side of people’s worldview’s that it should be taken even remotely seriously. There must be a rational explanation to call abiogenesis possible, failing that there is no reason to think 🤔 chance and necessity could build anything remotely functionally complex, then turn around with hit and miss mutations move forward in mutating into more complex life.
Then I have to say you're speaking from a position of ignorance and making entirely baseless claims. I'm equally ignorant but that's why I defer to those who are not (ignorant) and whose specialist knowledge clearly leads them to believe that an entirely naturalistic explanation is feasible in time.
What I do know is that the way heavier elements, essential for life, came into existence and the way life developed over vast spans of time, points much more strongly at a natural process than a 'designed' one.
Then I have to say you're speaking from a position of ignorance and making entirely baseless claims. I'm equally ignorant but that's why I defer to those who are not (ignorant) and whose specialist knowledge clearly leads them to believe that an entirely naturalistic explanation is feasible in time.
What I do know is that the way heavier elements, essential for life, came into existence and the way life developed over vast spans of time, points much more strongly at a natural process than a 'designed' one.
I am saying what we see as natural processes are degrading due to entropy is natural and claiming the opposite as natural is delusional. Claiming without showing evidence or reasoning behind your argument is not anything to look at, can not reason without reasons. Suggesting we should accept it because experts who agree with you doesn’t prove anything since there are experts who disagree. If you challenge the expertise of those who disagree based on they disagree alone you are still being circular by definition.
You cannot know anything without faith, you have faith that the behavior of all things as they are now and have always been, will remain so, that is faith. Natural systems are not defined by worldviews, they are the normative behaviors we find taking place in nature without interference. If anything is suggested what we see in nature has exceptions, we either know why that would be valid with cause, or we are running the risk of playing with the normative nature of life for reasons other than natural causes.
We have laws and standards to remove “well it looks good to me” but if your standards are it looks good to you, no reasoning there, it’s just personal opinion and preferences.