You are entitled to your opinion and I others are entitled on whose opinion they place more trust in. I am familar with Professor Miller from reading his comments and interacting with him on PS. All I know about you is from what you write on CF.
Your assumptions are incorrect.
I do not doubt that you have forensic evidence but you have not shown it is reliable and predicable when it comes to OoL. You can convince us by producing forensic evidence that consistently produces accurate results.
I have not claimed that there is evidence for abiogenesis and I agree that OoL is one of sciences' great questions. The difference between us is that it appears you have predetermined that life came about through supernatural origins. Perhaps I am wrong so I ask, have you ruled out that OoL could have come about through natural means?
Again your are assumptions are incorrect. They appear to be based on apologetics found on Discovery Institute, AIG and other similar creationist sites.
I am agnostic, as such, I have no idea weather a god exists or not. If god does not exist then our only means of understanding OoL is through natural means using our sciences. If a creator god does exist then he would be the ultimate cause of life regardless of what humans believe but the only way we would know for certain is if god revealed himself.
Having an interest in current science and origins is not a disease modern or otherwise.
Again you are incorrect. FYI, I don't take offense from personal attacks I simply take note of the source.
I find it utterly bizarre. You appear to put more weight on millers bible apologetics for abiogenesis , than you do on present day forensic science applied to present day visible samples.
My position on abiogenesis I made clear. It is pure speculation.
1/ there’s no evidence of when, where, what or how it happened, and it is a staggeringly complex problem
2/ simple logic shows it has problems with irreducible complexity, so how did it make the leap?
3/ have you noticed all the attempts to mimic parts of it are intelligent design by phds who still can’t do even
Parts of it!
but worse.
4/ it does not account for a separable consciousness or soul, that evidence says exists,
5/ since there is evidence for created cells in our own time, your kind of abiogenesis is unnecessary as a process for life. It could all be created without that abiogenesis.
I don’t rule it out, but there’s no evidence . I’ll assess if ever there is- but still can’t account for life because of 4/
it is fascinating such as miller acting as scientist can believe in a void of knowledge, instead of classifying it as pure conjecture.
I don’t accept your use of “supernatural” vs “natural” which is false dichotomy - a convenient myth of the present age: being able to describe what something is normally observed to do, is no explanation at all of what it is or why it is. and therefore cannot be conisidered a “cause“ natural or otherwise.
Gravity a clear case in point, ( I have to keep it simple for a non scientist audience) All you know is what it does. Gravity is not its own cause. Gravity does not cause itself. So gravity is not a natural cause, therefore it is not an explanation. Returning to the philosophy of what you can know It’s an observation, not explanation. Now do you see the philosophical problem Of considering so called natural laws as any kind of explanation.?
if God exists in nature all he does is thereby natural
My opinions come from a lifelong study of science and professional use of it, including quantum effects, which inevitably leads to a lot of hard questions on nature of reality, and our window on it, most of which you would not understand. But Try it and see. Read books on quantum reality. When you understand them, They will wreck your view of scientific model used as a kind of philosophical crutch. Even hawking saw the problem in the end, with his “ model dependent reality” wrecking philosophically for ever the possibility of a theory of everything.
my background qualifies me have such opinions . As a math modeller the question of what is empirical not fundamental matters. It also qualifies me to say for example, that all that Dawkins writes about climbing mount improbable is wishful nonsense of a man way out of his sphere of expertise, i was an expert on adaptive optimization. The sad thing is the world believes Dawkins , because it wants to believe his conclusion.
I will leave you to sound bites on discovery channnel.
I’m not saying that all science is wrong.
