From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 28/08/2025 4:08 pm, jillery wrote:   
   > On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 07:50:59 +1000, MarkE  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 27/08/2025 7:40 pm, jillery wrote:   
   >>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 16:55:35 +1000, MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 27/08/2025 1:11 am, sticks wrote:   
   >>>>> On 8/25/2025 9:23 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> ---snip---   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Alas, at the risk of passing irrevocably through the gates of Old   
   >>>>>> Fartdom, I have to inform you that talk.origins is a pale shadow of   
   >>>>>> its former self. The halcyon days of moonstones, the felt effect of   
   >>>>>> gravity, and woodpecker tongues are never to be revisited. So don't   
   >>>>>> get your hopes up.   
   >>>>>> You are correct that Ron tends to view everything through the lens of,   
   >>>>>> as he puts it, the ID scam. To give Ron his due, Mark E sometimes   
   >>>>>> posts material that doesn't contain overt religious assertion, but   
   >>>>>> fear not: they're almost certainly lurking just below the surface. The   
   >>>>>> stuff above is a fair example: Peltzer IS an accomplished chemist. But   
   >>>>>> he's also an IDist, and his testimony in Kansas really was (again Ron   
   >>>>>> is correct here) a God of the gaps argument.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> One thing you might do, is look at the TO website (talkorigins.org).   
   >>>>>> It's not been updated since the Permian, but there are a bunch of   
   >>>>>> excellent articles there under "Post of the Month".   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Now get off my lawn!   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Chris   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I shall find time to go to talkorigins.org.  Thank you.   
   >>>>> I'll also keep an eye out for those references to the God of the Gaps to   
   >>>>> see how specifically it is referred to in this group.  It seems people   
   >>>>> view this concept differently.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> BTW, I'm back on the sidewalk now.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If you're interested, here are t.o topics that give some context in   
   >>>> relation to the comments in this thread and where I'm coming from.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> - A summary of my own position and approach, and similar from others:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Why do you participate here?"   
   >>>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/8fuyuKN4VhE/m/xUYwSeYQAQAJ   
   >>>>   
   >>>> - A proposal on handling scientific evidence and avoiding a   
   >>>> god-of-the-gaps error:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Terms of Engagement?"   
   >>>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/Q0H4U47iYgk/m/2fprGczIBwAJ   
   >>>>   
   >>>> An example of an assessment of some reasonably current OOL science   
   >>>> commentary which IMO is revealing of how overstated progress in this   
   >>>> field is:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer"   
   >>>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/m/GhDNtzHcAAAJ   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> I acknowledge your links above are all good examples of your past   
   >>> posts.  Unfortunately, they are also good examples of your denial of   
   >>> the power of reproduction with modification over time, a denial you   
   >>> share with Tour, Peltzer and other ID heroes.  So while y'all continue   
   >>> to claim "science doesn't know X therefore God", good scientists work   
   >>> hard to shrink the gaps in their knowledge.  I can only hope that   
   >>> ID-inspired efforts will ultimately fail in their efforts to dumb down   
   >>> the electorate.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> "science doesn't know X therefore God" - accurate summation or   
   >> disingenuous caricature? Let the reader decide.   
   >   
   >   
   > "accurate summation or disingenuous caricature" - sounds like   
   > disingenuous denial.  Let the reader decide.   
   >   
   >  From your first link above:   
   > *****************************************************   
   > But more and more its amazing spatial properties, ultra-dense   
   > information storage, regulation and intricate function are being   
   > discovered. I see a creator's hand in these.   
   > *****************************************************   
   >   
   >  From your second link above:   
   > ************************************************************   
   > Consider this thought experiment: what if, after another 50 years of   
   > research, scientists unanimously declared that no workable   
   > naturalistic explanation for the origin of life could be found, and in   
   > fact the problem had become more intractable than ever, particularly   
   > as understanding of the complexity of the simplest cell dramatically   
   > increased over that time?  I’d call this a ‘gulf’, and a pointer to   
   > supernatural agency.   
   > *************************************************************   
   >   
   > Two out of three ain't good.   
   >   
      
   Okay, I'll give some you some points for the second one in particular.   
      
   However, elsewhere I have expanded and qualified this as follows:   
      
   ___   
      
   If, after 500 years on sustained research into origin of life, all   
   naturalistic avenues and hypotheses conceived to that point have been   
   demonstrated to be inadequate, and this is the consensus a large   
   majority scientists in the field, would you say:   
      
   1. We may never work this out   
   2. Keep looking   
   3. Let's consider the "God hypothesis"   
   4. Other (please elaborate)   
      
   You may choose more than one option.   
      
   [From the subject /David Deamer's book "Assembling Life"/]   
      
   ___   
      
   My question then, is it reasonable, accurate and in good faith to   
   characterise this as "science doesn't know X therefore God"?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)