From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/28/2025 6:31 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)