Amino acid probability

[angel]

If you're ready to concede that those points are also a matter of faith and restrict the discussion to the provable and the observable then I am also ready to concede that the origin of life and the need for a creator is a matter of faith as well.

You are claiming that genetic tests used in courts are a matter of faith and not a hard fact. Following your standards you should ask the supreme court to abolish them.

I agree that the distiction between faith and science is not digital. Everything is somewhere in between.
However, I think that some claims are nearer to science (the Earth is spherical, General relativity describes gravity, we share a common ancestor with chimps) others are nearer to faith (Jesus was divine, god created the universe in six literal days...).

I consider ERV as nearer to science than genetic tests.
You may disagree on this, but only a detailed discussions of ERV can decide who is right.
If you want to comment the ERV thread you are still welcome.

I think we all need to assess our styles of debate and adjust accordingly.
Let's keep the discussion civil (otherwise I will have no choice but to wield
the moderator ax and start chopping ).

Considered all, I believe I was far more patient than him.
Of course he will not agree...
All I can do is ignoring him. It is sad and I should not do it.
But I cannot avoid it and keep be civil. Thus I quit.

I don't see how we can continue the discussion without first agreeing on some common grounds with respect to abiogenesis.

I think abiogenesis has nothing to do with common ancestors and evolutions of species.
In fact one can believe in common ancestor and designer at the same time.

I understand the philosophical position that discussing abiogenesis come first as a prerequisite.
However, the same position would require to understand quantum gravity before stating kepler laws,
or discuss DNA before curing or screaning genetic illness.

However, if for some reason I don't understand you feel obliged to discuss abiogenesis first I am ready to do it.
Only I ask you to skip the issue until I posted my faith position as required.
I cannot follow another thread now.
If you wish open the thread and I will join as soon as i exit the faith stuff one.

The fact that you have a PHD in mathematics certainly entitles you to disagree with them and to state why.

I did not call on my PHD before and I will not call on it now.
The fact that I have a PHD does not entitle me to anything. It could help me to easily imagine where their argument comes from, but I believe anyone free of mind can follow and check and agree that the argument posted by GMan is rough and has nothing to do with chemistry.
For example you acknowledged it and I doubt anyone could accuse you to be on my side.
Please forget about my PhD.

I believe who use an argument takes the co-responsability of it.
I usually do not use arguments I do not agree with (except for ab absurdum reduction, of course).
Of course anyone can be wrong sometime. Acknowledging would be welcome in those case.

[bizzt]

god created the universe in six literal days...

I don't think you will find too many advocates on this site for that line of thinking. And I don't think that argument can be produced by faith for it flys into the Face of Reason. Faith is not about being against Facts... Most of the time Faith is developed by Facts first.

Anyways a thought to grind on

[angel]

Just a fast one to clarify.

I was not pushing it as a thought of mine. Nor as a thought of yours or anyone on this board.
I just collected some positions which *historically* have been expressed as matters of faith. They have sometimes been considered eretical but that is irrelevant to my point. My point being that *if* someone held them by faith, there is very little reason could say to disprove it.

No offense meant to anybody.

[Byblos]

If you're ready to concede that those points are also a matter of faith and restrict the discussion to the provable and the observable then I am also ready to concede that the origin of life and the need for a creator is a matter of faith as well.

You are claiming that genetic tests used in courts are a matter of faith and not a hard fact. Following your standards you should ask the supreme court to abolish them.

I don't know of any supreme court case, or any other court case for that matter, that dealt with human/chimp geneology (unless you want to consider the scopes monkey trial as such). Common ancestry as a theory, plausible as it may look, is unprovable at its core, unless specific biological pathways can be described, tested, and proven. Until such time, please forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt. And by the way, let me clarify one thing about what I believe also: I will have absolutely no problem whatsoever if such 'proof' ever materialized. Whether God chose progressive creationism, theistic evolution, 6-day creation, or giant green aliens for his miracles, is really of no concern to me. It does not change my view of God one bit.

I agree that the distiction between faith and science is not digital. Everything is somewhere in between.
However, I think that some claims are nearer to science (the Earth is spherical, General relativity describes gravity, we share a common ancestor with chimps) others are nearer to faith (Jesus was divine, god created the universe in six literal days...).

I consider ERV as nearer to science than genetic tests.
You may disagree on this, but only a detailed discussions of ERV can decide who is right.

Who decides if something is nearer to science or not? Who decides if someone is right or wrong? It is either there or it's not. I don't particularly care how 'close' you are.

If you want to comment the ERV thread you are still welcome.

In due time. I must first educate myself on the subject a bit more (which is to say a lot).

I think we all need to assess our styles of debate and adjust accordingly.
Let's keep the discussion civil (otherwise I will have no choice but to wield
the moderator ax and start chopping ).

Considered all, I believe I was far more patient than him.
Of course he will not agree...
All I can do is ignoring him. It is sad and I should not do it.
But I cannot avoid it and keep be civil. Thus I quit.

That is your prerogative.

I don't see how we can continue the discussion without first agreeing on some common grounds with respect to abiogenesis.

I think abiogenesis has nothing to do with common ancestors and evolutions of species.
In fact one can believe in common ancestor and designer at the same time.

Yes, but the question will always lead back to the origin of life and it seems to me that one ought to be able to stand on one side, the other or declare that they simply do not know (in which case they should not be arguing for unassisted abiogenesis).

I understand the philosophical position that discussing abiogenesis come first as a prerequisite.
However, the same position would require to understand quantum gravity before stating kepler laws,
or discuss DNA before curing or screaning genetic illness.

I disagree. You can study and discuss anything you like. But when you form an unsupported opinion and present it as fact is when people will have a problem with your argument.

However, if for some reason I don't understand you feel obliged to discuss abiogenesis first I am ready to do it.
Only I ask you to skip the issue until I posted my faith position as required.

I cannot follow another thread now.
If you wish open the thread and I will join as soon as i exit the faith stuff one.

No problem, I'll wait until then. By then the issue may become moot anyway.

The fact that you have a PHD in mathematics certainly entitles you to disagree with them and to state why.

I did not call on my PHD before and I will not call on it now.
The fact that I have a PHD does not entitle me to anything. It could help me to easily imagine where their argument comes from, but I believe anyone free of mind can follow and check and agree that the argument posted by GMan is rough and has nothing to do with chemistry.
For example you acknowledged it and I doubt anyone could accuse you to be on my side.
Please forget about my PhD.

All I was trying to say is that I am not in a position to argue or refute any arguments or examples you put forth on probability because I simply do not have the level of expertise that you do.

I believe who use an argument takes the co-responsability of it.
I usually do not use arguments I do not agree with (except for ab absurdum reduction, of course).
Of course anyone can be wrong sometime. Acknowledging would be welcome in those case.

Agreed.

[bizzt]

Just a fast one to clarify.

I was not pushing it as a thought of mine. Nor as a thought of yours or anyone on this board.
I just collected some positions which *historically* have been expressed as matters of faith. They have sometimes been considered eretical but that is irrelevant to my point. My point being that *if* someone held them by faith, there is very little reason could say to disprove it.

No offense meant to anybody.

I think you have one thing wrong though. If someone held them by faith and Reason was right in front of your face with Empirical Evidence to back it up then your Faith is no longer Faith! It is Ignorance.

Nonetheless kind of off topic so please continue in your Discussion

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I agree that the distiction between faith and science is not digital. Everything is somewhere in between.
However, I think that some claims are nearer to science (the Earth is spherical, General relativity describes gravity, we share a common ancestor with chimps) others are nearer to faith (Jesus was divine, god created the universe in six literal days...).

I consider ERV as nearer to science than genetic tests.
You may disagree on this, but only a detailed discussions of ERV can decide who is right.

Who decides if something is nearer to science or not? Who decides if someone is right or wrong? It is either there or it's not. I don't particularly care how 'close' you are.

This is a good point, even observations are subject to review. Anything which is empirically measurable can fall within science.

One thing I am confused about, however, you seem to be equating extrapolation and induction with faith. Is this your position?

Let's use an astronomer for this example. Using telescopes they receive light from stars in distant nebulas. By analyzing the wavelength's of light present in the image, they are able to determine the material composition of the young stars. But this is based on spectroscopy work done here on earth.
Is it faith to state that materials behave the same many light years away as it does here on earth? Or is it induction?

What is the difference?
So in the example with chimpanzee and human genomes, it is by induction that we suggest that they share a common ancestor. It is the best available explanation. However this can be proven wrong with the next observation. The only difference I can see is that this induction was made based on genetic analysis within proven relationships.

Take the following for example.

We know that humans speak languages. We also know that languages change over time. We surmise that languages are related to each other. We do this because it is unlikely for certain combinations of features to arise independantly. So analysis of sereral languages leads to a relationship chart as shown above.

Of course as with evolution, there is something missing in the charts. Any linguist will tell you that proto-germanic is not a specific language. It is probably a dialect which spread throughout a region. And in time became many distinct dialects. The languages which followed probably came as a result of the influences of multiple dialects. In otherwords the tree is actually a bush. But for simplicity and for the purpose of showing relations it is drawn in this mannor.

But we have never seen a new language form. And the assumption that all human languages are related is just that, albiet an educated one.

So in essence it is faith!
With one caveat. These ideas can be tossed into the garbage pail if overwhelming opposing evidence comes along.

I think bizzt sums it up best in his statement above.

Human beings are not all knowing powerfull entities. We have limited understanding. Everything we know beyond the immediate is faith.

If our faith stands in abject opposition to the immediate, then it is provincialism.

We are all ignorant.

I don't see how we can continue the discussion without first agreeing on some common grounds with respect to abiogenesis.

I think abiogenesis has nothing to do with common ancestors and evolutions of species.
In fact one can believe in common ancestor and designer at the same time.

Yes, but the question will always lead back to the origin of life and it seems to me that one ought to be able to stand on one side, the other or declare that they simply do not know (in which case they should not be arguing for unassisted abiogenesis).

If one declares that they don't know, are they not still permitted to point out obviously flawed arguments?
In other words if I sit on the fence and someone tries to convince me with obvious rubbish, should I just ignore it? Or can I point out the fact that I am still on the fence because the information was not convincing in the least.

I understand the philosophical position that discussing abiogenesis come first as a prerequisite.
However, the same position would require to understand quantum gravity before stating kepler laws,
or discuss DNA before curing or screaning genetic illness.

I disagree. You can study and discuss anything you like. But when you form an unsupported opinion and present it as fact is when people will have a problem with your argument.

But that is not the point, the point is that practically, many subjects can be studied even withstanding a lack of knowledge in it's philosophical underpinnings.

So in this thread I beleive the focus should stay on abiogenesis. As evolution doesn't depend on resolving the matter, in order to be studied.

[godslanguage]

Even language is a conscious act.

[Byblos]

I don't see how we can continue the discussion without first agreeing on some common grounds with respect to abiogenesis.

I think abiogenesis has nothing to do with common ancestors and evolutions of species.
In fact one can believe in common ancestor and designer at the same time.

Yes, but the question will always lead back to the origin of life and it seems to me that one ought to be able to stand on one side, the other or declare that they simply do not know (in which case they should not be arguing for unassisted abiogenesis).

If one declares that they don't know, are they not still permitted to point out obviously flawed arguments?
In other words if I sit on the fence and someone tries to convince me with obvious rubbish, should I just ignore it? Or can I point out the fact that I am still on the fence because the information was not convincing in the least.

Of course you're permitted to believe anything you like and to act on it as you wish. My purpose in defining where everyone stands is not to limit one's ability to discuss but rather to eliminate unnecessary chatter. We keep going back and forth precisely because to this day we do not know where everyone stands on the issues of abiogenesis and a creator. I'm really not trying to get personal here but I think it is essential that it be clarified so that everyone knows from what position everyone else is arguing. I happen to have an answer for abiogenesis and I call it God, however unscientific that answer might seem to some. If one happens to not believe in God or is agnostic, either they must prove how life originated or they must conclude that they don't know. What they cannot do is state unequivocally that life originated unassisted. You don't wanna believe in God, be my guest. But please don't tell me you have an answer as to how life came about. That is what I'm trying to get at, no more and no less.

I understand the philosophical position that discussing abiogenesis come first as a prerequisite.
However, the same position would require to understand quantum gravity before stating kepler laws,
or discuss DNA before curing or screaning genetic illness.

I disagree. You can study and discuss anything you like. But when you form an unsupported opinion and present it as fact is when people will have a problem with your argument.

But that is not the point, the point is that practically, many subjects can be studied even withstanding a lack of knowledge in it's philosophical underpinnings.

So in this thread I believe the focus should stay on abiogenesis. As evolution doesn't depend on resolving the matter, in order to be studied.

I do not disagree with you. In fact, that's the point I was trying to make. Studying evolution, however, without making assumptions as to the origin of life (or inter-special connections for that matter) is a lofty goal that, sadly, many scientists do not adhere to.

[Byblos]

This was not part of the original post but was added before I posted mine (that's why I missed it).

One thing I am confused about, however, you seem to be equating extrapolation and induction with faith. Is this your position?

Not exactly but you must admit they both do have some element of faith.

Let's use an astronomer for this example. Using telescopes they receive light from stars in distant nebulas. By analyzing the wavelength's of light present in the image, they are able to determine the material composition of the young stars. But this is based on spectroscopy work done here on earth.
Is it faith to state that materials behave the same many light years away as it does here on earth? Or is it induction?
What is the difference?

It's induction based on the faith that what is observed and inducted is what is actually occurring (or what actually occurred in this case).

So in the example with chimpanzee and human genomes, it is by induction that we suggest that they share a common ancestor. It is the best available explanation. However this can be proven wrong with the next observation. The only difference I can see is that this induction was made based on genetic analysis within proven relationships.

It is the best available explantation given the assumptions. Change the assumptions and it is no longer the best available explanation.

Take the following for example.

We know that humans speak languages. We also know that languages change over time. We surmise that languages are related to each other. We do this because it is unlikely for certain combinations of features to arise independantly. So analysis of sereral languages leads to a relationship chart as shown above.

Of course as with evolution, there is something missing in the charts. Any linguist will tell you that proto-germanic is not a specific language. It is probably a dialect which spread throughout a region. And in time became many distinct dialects. The languages which followed probably came as a result of the influences of multiple dialects. In otherwords the tree is actually a bush. But for simplicity and for the purpose of showing relations it is drawn in this mannor.

But we have never seen a new language form. And the assumption that all human languages are related is just that, albiet an educated one.

I do not disagree with this analogy. I would disagree with it if you had concluded that also whale speech (which a recent study suggests whales have dialects) is a descendent of the same linguistic tree.

So in essence it is faith!
With one caveat. These ideas can be tossed into the garbage pail if overwhelming opposing evidence comes along.

True.

I think bizzt sums it up best in his statement above.

Human beings are not all knowing powerfull entities. We have limited understanding. Everything we know beyond the immediate is faith.

If our faith stands in abject opposition to the immediate, then it is provincialism.

We are all ignorant.

Also true.

[Gman]

Sorry.. I was battling Mormonism in a different section here....

So in essence it is faith!
With one caveat. These ideas can be tossed into the garbage pail if overwhelming opposing evidence comes along.

True.

I don't have a problem with this either... Both ID and Darwinian evolution (DE) are in essence faiths... However my disagreement comes when people say that DE has nothing to do with chance. Even if you say that the probabilities for life are unknown or may be smaller than what we may theorize, it is still based on chance nonetheless.. That is all I want to say here...

[angel]

Who decides if something is nearer to science or not? Who decides if someone
is right or wrong? It is either there or it's not.
I don't particularly care how 'close' you are.

My answer is that we all decide each by himself what is right and wrong.
I suppose this is the result of Eve action.

Then science is the collective output of individual behaviours.
In a generation the people who believe to be right but they are wrong will convinced or
will get extinct in face of the successes of the right one.

That is evolution, isn't it?
I'll patient and we shall continue the discussion when you will be ready.
I likes you and I hope you will be convinced.

I disagree. You can study and discuss anything you like. But when you form an unsupported
opinion and present it as fact is when people will have a problem with your argument.

I think I was not clear enough.
What I meant is that historically speaking the prevention for some genetic cures
and kepler laws are perfect branck of science which have been succesfully studied
EVEN IF they fundamentally point to open problems which are in quantum physics or DNA genetics.
Not for that we have to wait to solve quantum gravity puzzles before stating laws for planet motion.

I think the same apply to common ancestors and abiogenesis.
As I said we can move on and discuss abiogenesis for what we can with current knowledge.

Even language is a conscious act.

Except Esperanto, though it is not designed.

It's induction based on the faith that what is observed and inducted is
what is actually occurring (or what actually occurred in this case).

When I do induction I am ready to abandon it tomorrow when I will discover a new evidence
contradicting my induction.

Are you ready to abandon your faith if science will prove bejond any reasonable doubt that
we share a common ancestor with chimps, that life emerged by chance from non life
and that the universe was not created by big bang but it always existed?

I suppose you don't. And I accept this choice.
I believe though that this is the difference between faith and inferences/inductions.

I do not disagree with this analogy. I would disagree with it if you had
concluded that also whale speech (which a recent study suggests whales have dialects)
is a descendent of the same linguistic tree.

Byblos, we start discussing the common ancestors between chimps and humans.
This is not in contradiction with the fact that there may exist lifeforms which comes from an independent
tree. I know there is no evidence of a separate tree (I know, I know, ...)
but let us suppose tomorrow we shall discover a virus using right handed amminoacid
instead the ordinary left handed one. It is a common opinion that this would mean that it belongs to
another tree. Would it disprove that we share common ancestor with chimps?

The evolutionists would say, ok we had two independent abiogenesis forming different trees each evolving independently.
It is obvious that we belong to the same tree of chimps and hence we keep sharing a common ancestor with them.

However, I liked the analogy....

[YLTYLT]

angel,

HI,

Please forgive me if I have missed some of the thread discussions. I read the first page trying to identify the answer to my question but I could not find it.

So my question is on what your position is on this discussion.

Are you saying that:
1. There is no God and everything is random.
2. There is a God that created amino acids that then they randomly became life.
3. Or something completely all together different.

4. Or is this just a discussion for the sake of discussion

Jeff

[Byblos]

Hi Angel,

Thank you for that lengthy profession of faith you provided here. You're right, I do disagree with much of what you say. A god that has not created anything and who cannot interact with the physical world is not much of a god to me. The reason I'm responding here and not in the other post is that I also agree with you, this should not be an issue of faith. It really would have sufficed if you had answered YLTYLT's questions in the post above. What I'm looking for is something like this:

I believe:

- God created the universe via the big bang and let it run from there
or
- God created the universe and interacts with his creation
or
- God is spirit and the universe (and life in it) has always existed
or
- God doesn't exist and the universe is one of many (infinite universes, string theory, whatever)

Something on that order so that we can continue the discussion knowing from what perspective each of us is arguing. I'll be honest with you, even after that confession of faith of yours, I still don't know where you stand wrt abiogenesis. Perhaps it is better to steer the discussion in that direction (abiogenesis) rather than focus on God per se. Can you explain a bit how you believe the first life came about? If you prefer to create a new thread, that would be fine as well.

[angel]

A god that has not created anything and who cannot interact with the physical world is not much of a god to me.

I know we disagree on that. And it is fine to me 'cos there is no need for me we agree on that (while I would like we come to some sort of agreement about purely scientific issues).

To be clear I have to add that to me a God which is forced to interfere continuosly in the physical world is not much of a god either.
I hope you understand I am not looking for polemics about this but just trying to clarify what I think.

I believe that God acting in the physical world means giving it a physical nature which I believe is reductive wrt its spiritual nature.
I believe (and as any positive claim in this contex that is a matter of faith, not reason.
Other wise I would have written "I think" ) that God inserted in the structure of reality (something which goes back to Logic, not even to fundamental physics!) something we did not fully uncover yet that forces Nature to develop a universe and then life in it.
I personally don't think god acts to produce the Big Bang either. I believe it will become clear that physics laws are subjected to self-consistency constraints and that such constraint will show that the only possible physical laws will end up in a universe hosting life.

I also believe that such a structure is much more marvelous than any scenario in which God acts a an engineer who is always forced to control check and rerpair what (s)he projected.

Always my opinion of course.

It really would have sufficed if you had answered YLTYLT's questions in the post above.

You know Byblos that English is not my language and it is not as effective as I would like.
Sometimes I prefer to spend some extra words just to be sure people understand what I meant.

- God created the universe via the big bang and let it run from there
or
- God created the universe and interacts with his creation
or
- God is spirit and the universe (and life in it) has always existed
or
- God doesn't exist and the universe is one of many (infinite universes, string theory, whatever)

I did not reply directly to this because I would like to avoid to appear being dodging the questions.
I think now it is clear to who read the other thread that

1) I believe God exists as a spiritual entity but I *think* not as a physical entity

2) I don't believe that it interacts physically with its creation (and I *think* there is no physical evidence of such an action)

3) I don't even believe it physically created the universe (and I *think* it did not)

4) At the same time I believe the universe IS God's creation, in the sense that it exists because of the structure of physical world which was set up by God.
If you like I could call this sort of relation between God and the origin of physical worls as a "spiritual creation".

5) I cannot prove any of the above



I hope this clarify at least my position.
Do you agree that I am trying to honestly answer the question without dogdging?
Is my position clarified enough?

I'll be honest with you, even after that confession of faith of yours,
I still don't know where you stand wrt abiogenesis.
Perhaps it is better to steer the discussion in that direction (abiogenesis) rather than focus on God per se.

I agree. We are better to discuss abiogenesis directly.

I think we don't know much about how abiogenesis happened.
I think calling for a God action does not teach us much about it (and that is why I prefer to look for a materialistic explanation rather than to call for a divine action).
I believe that we shall sooner or later prove that abiogenesis can be explained on a purely materialistic level.

[I hope you noticed where I wrote "I think" and where I wrote "I believe" cos it is not by chance! ]

Can you explain a bit how you believe the first life came about?
If you prefer to create a new thread, that would be fine as well.

Maybe it is better tom move to a new thread...at least for future referencing.

[Byblos]

To be clear I have to add that to me a God which is forced to interfere continuosly in the physical world is not much of a god either.
I hope you understand I am not looking for polemics about this but just trying to clarify what I think.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying. Why would God be forced to do anything? He could just as well leave us to our own devices but in his infinite wisdom and love he reveals himself to us, subtly through natural wonders (including science), and more directly through the Bible, prophecies and their fulfillment, the culmination of which is Jesus Christ. If it weren't for these interferences a lot more people would be lost.

I believe that God acting in the physical world means giving it a physical nature which I believe is reductive wrt its spiritual nature.
I believe (and as any positive claim in this contex that is a matter of faith, not reason.
Other wise I would have written "I think" ) that God inserted in the structure of reality (something which goes back to Logic, not even to fundamental physics!) something we did not fully uncover yet that forces Nature to develop a universe and then life in it.

This again makes no sense. Either God interferes or he doesn't. You can't have it both ways. Inserting something to make life spring up on its own is interference. And if God can interfere in such a manner, why not the way we claim he is?

I personally don't think god acts to produce the Big Bang either. I believe it will become clear that physics laws are subjected to self-consistency constraints and that such constraint will show that the only possible physical laws will end up in a universe hosting life.

I also believe that such a structure is much more marvelous than any scenario in which God acts a an engineer who is always forced to control check and rerpair what (s)he projected.

Always my opinion of course.

That's the trouble Angel. It is basically an unsupported opinion and nothing more (with all due respect, of course). Our position is not a mere opinion. It is supported by the Bible, which in turn is supported by historical, archaeological, and literary evidences. It is supported by the word of the prophets and, most of all, by the fulfillment of the prophesies. It is the most scrutinized book ever written and yet to this day it withstands the test of time. You can dismiss evidence like that out right but it would be a dismissal based on naivety as it cannot possibly be countered by a simple opinion.

It really would have sufficed if you had answered YLTYLT's questions in the post above.

You know Byblos that English is not my language and it is not as effective as I would like.
Sometimes I prefer to spend some extra words just to be sure people understand what I meant.

Your English is fine Angel.

- God created the universe via the big bang and let it run from there
or
- God created the universe and interacts with his creation
or
- God is spirit and the universe (and life in it) has always existed
or
- God doesn't exist and the universe is one of many (infinite universes, string theory, whatever)

I did not reply directly to this because I would like to avoid to appear being dodging the questions.
I think now it is clear to who read the other thread that

1) I believe God exists as a spiritual entity but I *think* not as a physical entity

2) I don't believe that it interacts physically with its creation (and I *think* there is no physical evidence of such an action)

3) I don't even believe it physically created the universe (and I *think* it did not)

4) At the same time I believe the universe IS God's creation, in the sense that it exists because of the structure of physical world which was set up by God.
If you like I could call this sort of relation between God and the origin of physical worls as a "spiritual creation".

5) I cannot prove any of the above



I hope this clarify at least my position.
Do you agree that I am trying to honestly answer the question without dogdging?
Is my position clarified enough?

Somewhat but not entirely (it will do for now though). Just to repeat one thing, either God created the universe or he didn't. It is meaningless to say God did not create anything physical but everything physical came about because of what God initially set up. They are one and the same.

I'll be honest with you, even after that confession of faith of yours,
I still don't know where you stand wrt abiogenesis.
Perhaps it is better to steer the discussion in that direction (abiogenesis) rather than focus on God per se.

I agree. We are better to discuss abiogenesis directly.

I think we don't know much about how abiogenesis happened.
I think calling for a God action does not teach us much about it (and that is why I prefer to look for a materialistic explanation rather than to call for a divine action).
I believe that we shall sooner or later prove that abiogenesis can be explained on a purely materialistic level.

[I hope you noticed where I wrote "I think" and where I wrote "I believe" cos it is not by chance! ]

You're right, science doesn't know much about abiogenesis. I totally agree with that. Then why is it taught as fact in schools? Why is it projected as an incontrovertible truth? Why do Darwinian Evolutionists peddle it as a proven theory?

Can you explain a bit how you believe the first life came about?
If you prefer to create a new thread, that would be fine as well.

Maybe it is better tom move to a new thread...at least for future referencing.

And here's the link.