From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/7/2025 8:25 AM, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 9/7/25 12:51 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   >> On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>> This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that   
   >>>> scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science providing   
   >>>> evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - evidence   
   >>>> from science giving reason to consider explanations beyond the reach   
   >>>> of science.   
   >>>   
   >>> Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.   
   >>>   
   >>> But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start with   
   >>> one simple question: what has religion produced in the last 2000   
   >>> years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a few   
   >>> books that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of fables, like   
   >>> those featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of Australian   
   >>> Aboriginal people. And at least a few hundred others. None of these   
   >>> seem to be any more reliable than the rest. Why hasn't religion   
   >>> settled on one, or at least a few similar hypotheses? Just because   
   >>> science has been doing other stuff should not have held theologians   
   >>> back from working on this.   
   >>   
   >> I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly   
   >> conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already   
   >> progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations of   
   >> even a protocell*.   
   >>   
   >> But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to   
   >> define and delineate epidemiological categories and their application.   
   >> Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However, statements like   
   >> "sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and "a bunch of fables"   
   >> are standard TO fare and a lazy category error.   
   >>   
   >> I believe you can do better.   
   >   
   > I believe, unfortunately, that *you* can't. You ignored the point   
   > entirely. What has religion come up with as an explanation for the   
   > origin of life in the last several thousand years? If it is indeed a   
   > "way of knowing" on par with science, there should be something you   
   > could point to. What is it?   
      
   It has been determined that the origin of life must not have happened   
   the way that it looks like it happened, and that it all has to be denied   
   in order to keep believing what the Bible said about it.   
      
   Really, what has been learned is that what religion has come up with is   
   not consistent with what nature has to say about the creation.   
      
   The earth is not flat, nor is the created universe geocentric.  The   
   creation isn't consistent with the six day creation nor calling them six   
   periods of time.  The Biblical creation of life scenario is not   
   consistent with what we have been able to figure out so far.  Land   
   plants were not the first lifeforms created during the 3rd day.  The sun   
   and moon were not created on the 4th day, but had been created when our   
   solar system formed out of stellar debris that it took over 8 billion   
   years to create in dying stars.  There were sea creatures swimming   
   around a couple hundred million years before land plants evolved from   
   fresh water algae.  Birds were not created with sea creatures on the 5th   
   day before land animals and humans were created on the 6th day.  All   
   this was pretty much understood when the scientific creationists were   
   using the Big Bang, fine tuning, origin of life, flagellum as a designed   
   machine, Cambrian explosion and gaps in the human fossil record for   
   denial purposes.  They understood that the origin of life gap is   
   inconsistent with the Biblical claims, so the gap denial has always just   
   been used for denial purposes.  That is all MarkE is using it for.  The   
   god that fills the origin of life gap is not his Biblical god.  Bill   
   gave up on the gap denial and started claiming that reality doesn't   
   exist because Bill can't deal with reality.  Neither can MarkE.   
      
   Ron Okimoto>   
   >> -------   
   >>   
   >> * For example:   
   >>   
   >> 1. The thread here "New" "ideas" on origin of life: "The study finds   
   >> life’s origin faces severe mathematical challenges".   
   >>   
   >> 2. Deeper OOL paradoxes only partially acknowledged, e.g. https://   
   >> link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0   
   >>   
   >> 3. Or this (https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/m/   
   >> nb1u4MD6AAAJ):   
   >>   
   >> This talk is from 2015, though David Deamer's book "Assembling Life"   
   >> that is based on this was published in 2019. Note Bruce Damer's call   
   >> for a new approach to OoL, and note the uncanny alignment with Tour,   
   >> Bains, Long Story Short, etc:   
   >>   
   >> 4:29 “[OoL research has] been mainly focused on individual solution   
   >> chemistry experiments where they want to show polymerization over   
   >> here, or they want to show metabolism over here, and Dave and I   
   >> believe that it's time for the field to go from incremental progress   
   >> to substantial progress. So, these are the four points we've come up   
   >> with to make substantial progress in the origin of life, and the first   
   >> one is to employ something called system chemistry, having sufficient   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)