[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> claiming otherwise.   
   >>>   
   >>> 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).   
      
      
   You have asserted *repeatedly* that it's closed-minded to not consider   
   supernatural explanations as valid alternatives to scientific   
   explanations.  To now say that such comparisons are a category error,   
   as you do above, that necessarily means they are *not* valid   
   alternatives.  You want to have it both ways, which neither clarifies   
   nor demonstrates your line of reasoning.   
      
      
   >> 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").   
      
      
   Your point is simple enough; any arbitrarily long period of time   
   clinging to a particular line of reasoning demonstrates closed-minded   
   futility, and perhaps insanity (think repetition).   
      
   Too bad you didn't understand my point; a single lifetime doesn't come   
   close to justifying that conclusion.  Instead of showing the   
   stagnation you insist they do, your examples below show OoL research   
   is at a level similar to that of physics and astronomy at the turn of   
   the 20th century, before new evidence identified entirely new answers   
   and questions and paradigms about these subjects.   
      
       
   >> 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.   
      
      
   To the contrary, your responses above show me that I understand your   
   expressed line of reasoning better than you do.   
      
      
   >>>>>>> * 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…”   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>    
      
   --    
   To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)