From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 28/08/2025 9:23 pm, MarkE wrote:   
   > On 28/08/2025 4:08 pm, jillery wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 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"?   
   >   
      
   Moreover, from the thread "Surviving the Daily DNA Apocalypse":   
      
   How many times have we all been around the block on this fundamental   
   question? A common position here is functionally   
   ontological/metaphysical naturalism. No matter how wide the "gap" may   
   become, non-natural explanations will not be [allowed to be] considered.   
    From "The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check" (pp. 187-189):   
      
   Objection: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just   
   because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we have   
   to invoke God to fill the gaps.   
      
   Response: The entirety of this book seeks to provide a proper scope to   
   the “gap.” The Stairway to Life clarifies that the gap is not simply a   
   missing puzzle piece or a set of unclear details. The gap is, in fact,   
   the entirety of the origin of life. And the gap is growing over time as   
   we learn more about the complexity of cells and as efforts to produce   
   components of life via realistic prebiotic approaches fail. As we have   
   mentioned, additional steps will be added to the Stairway to Life over   
   time. These steps will come from previously unexplored processes that   
   are required for life. For example, we mentioned in Chapter 17 that the   
   current best approximation of a minimal cell that can reproduce   
   autonomously includes 493 genes [201]. This same report specifies that   
   91 of the 493 genes perform unknown functions. Therefore, about 20% of   
   the minimal genome codes for functions that we have not yet explored.   
   Further, the genome is not the only information contained in life. We   
   are just beginning to explore other forms of information found in living   
   organisms, such as the sugar code that encapsulates cells [226]. Future   
   exploration in these areas will result in new steps in the Stairway to   
   Life and an ever-increasing “gap.” The emperor is not simply missing a   
   lapel pin; the emperor has no clothes. Our conclusion that creative   
   intelligence was essential to start life is based on what we do know,   
   not on what we don’t know. The arguments in this book do not take the   
   following form: “No one knows how life began; therefore, God did it.”   
   Rather, the inference to the need for intelligence in the origin of life   
   follows directly from what we do know about the requirements for life   
   and what we do know about chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and   
   biology. Turning this objection around, choosing to maintain a belief in   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)