From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/28/2025 6:23 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)