[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> I should say too that my own faith does not depend on science, though I   
   >> do take science seriously.   
   >>   
   >> All of which takes us back to my original proposal: if my "1000 years"   
   >> scenario eventuates, then rationally that adds impetus to consider   
   >> supernatural explanations, even with the challenges mentioned. You may   
   >> still declare your own unwillingness to consider the supernatural, even   
   >> with the the most compelling "1000 years" scenario imaginable, and may   
   >> justify that by claiming that such explanations are not knowable. I   
   >> would respond that, at some point, a refusal to at least explore would   
   >> betray an a priori commitment to materialism in the face of scientific   
   >> evidence. And you may disagree, and there we would reach a stalemate.   
   >>   
   >> Okay, we know where we stand. The best we can do then is stick to   
   >> discussing science and make our own choices as to where that may lead.   
   >>   
   >> As for the "1000 years" of OOL, thankfully there's no need to wait, it's   
   >> already here, the examples below being just a small sample...   
   >   
   >   
   > On the one hand, you admit that supernatural explanations and   
   > scientific explanations aren't equivalent, which makes your expressed   
   > line of reasoning a false equivalence, a disingenuous debating tactic.   
   >   
      
   Not "admit", rather clarify and demonstrate (against considerable   
   resistance here). The corollary being, it's a category error to demand   
   that the alternative God-hypothesis function in the same way as science   
   (which explains the resistance).   
      
   > On the other hand, you assert 1000 years of OOL are upon us, when your   
   > examples below actually show that OOL research has only just begun   
   > within my lifetime.   
      
   No, I'm not having it both ways. The 1000 years was a conservative   
   number in a thought experiment to make a point. It was not a suggestion   
   that OoL rightly has decades or centuries to run before judgment can be   
   made its progress. I've openly stated previously and recently my opinion   
   that OoL can be called to account now (e.g. my current thread " David   
   Deamer: Five Decades of Research on the Question of How Life Can Begin").   
      
   >   
   > On the gripping hand, you claim to have won the debate, without even   
   > trying to answer the questions you raised, a characteristic typical of   
   > IDeology.  Bad form, MarkE.   
      
    From my responses above, you can see that you've misconstrued what I'm   
   saying.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>> * 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 complexity so instead of one experiment say about   
   >>>>>> proteins, now you have an experiment about the encapsulation of   
   >>>>>> proteins for example, and informational molecules built from   
   >>>>>> nucleotides in an environment that would say be like an analog of   
   >>>>>> the early Earth, build a complex experiment. Something we're calling   
   >>>>>> sufficient complexity, and all of these experiments have to move the   
   >>>>>> reactions away from equilibrium. And what do we mean by that? Well,   
   >>>>>> in in your high school chemistry experiments, something starts   
   >>>>>> foaming something changes color and then the experiment winds down   
   >>>>>> and stops. Well, life didn't get started that way. Life got started   
   >>>>>> by a continuous run-up of complexity and building upon in a sense   
   >>>>>> nature as a ratchet. So we have to figure out how to build   
   >>>>>> experiments that move will move away from equilibrium…”   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> 6:31 “You can't sit in a laboratory just using glassware. You have   
   >>>>>> to go to the field. You have to go to hot springs, you have to go to   
   >>>>>> […] Iceland and come check and sit down and see what the natural   
   >>>>>> environment is like, rather than being in the ethereal world of pure   
   >>>>>> reactants and things like that…”   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)