The scientific method has demonstrated that living things are made up of extremely complex biomolecular machines which cannot have arisen by any currently known natural processes.
Marc you keep making this statement in various forms (known chemistry proves life cannot exist, life cannot arise spontaneously etc). And you have been asked on numerous ocassions to provide evidence that they cannot have currently arisen by any known natural processes.
If you have an issue with currently known processse can you please provide hard scientific evidence or some kind of LOGICAL detailed argument showing how and why the various strands of research cannot give rise to life? Being aware that you will have to include evidence to the conditions, evidence to show no catalysts exist, evidence to show that research that hasn't even been done or thought of yet yet will be fundamentallly flawed in some way. Don't just keep parroting the same creationist mantras of equilibrium or known natural processes have failed. Give some detail!!!!!!!!
1) believing that it could have arisen by some unknown natural process (undirected / unintelligent design)
Natural processes are not unintelligent design but I take your point.
Extremely complex biomolecular machines exist. We know the earliest of these for which we have evidence was NOT Adam and Eve flollicking happily thru their dairy and dinosaur farm. So we know life got here, and we KNOW it wasn't as recorded in Genesis!
Moreover we have a very, very good idea indeed for the story from there. So life at some point, by currently known or unknown processes, arrived here. The most probable and likely explanation is natural processes given what occurs either side of it.
Moreover far from proving natural processs impossible, even flawed Miller Urey show that complex molecules can arise in certain conditions, and the reams of later research show they can in a range of diverse conditions. Other research shows simple evolution at a very, very basic level, and other research is looking for features of life in inorganic chemistry. And it doesn't even have to be on Earth. So difficult and intriguing rather than impossible is the word I'd use.
Feel free to shove God into that gap for the time being but it does not prove any of your beliefs and does not get rid of the simple fact that once life appeared it EVOLVED. But think about what the consequences of just shoving God into this gap. Think about what it says about his inability to understand chemistry enough to allow natural processes to give rise to life when everything else proceeds happily via natural processes in that way.
2) believing that an intelligent agent constructed the machines and assembled them by manipulation of matter in a way that we are not yet able to achieve.
However, we are starting to manipulate matter at the microscopic level and I believe that humans are potentially capable of manufacturing living systems from scratch, which will demonstrate that it can be done by intelligent agents.
So God came down (or the intelligent agent) and constructed what exactly?
If your machine (which you haven't defined at all) is RNA or DNA and proteins are you actually saying Genesis should say God came down and made RNA and proteins chucked them in a pond and left them? Is that what you are saying? Please be precise. Can't discuss this point until you make it clear what you are on about.
Please clarify - are you saying God came down and magickically glued together nucleotides than shoved them in a pond with some amino acides and left? Or are you saying God came down and magicked up some simple prokaryotic cells and left them in a pond? Cos that would be manufacturing a living system from scratch.
Given irreducible complexity of existing biology/biochemistry does not exist (as all evidence shows it is NOT irreducibly complex) and given what we know about before and after the origin of life - are you really shoving God into a gap to desperately glue together nucleotides? What does that say about God?
And more importantly why is that not recorded in the book of Genesis.
Please clarify exactly what you mean. I'm not as bright as the others I can't interpret you rhetorical wafflings as competently.