[continued from previous message]   
      
   theory by his personal belief.  He did claim that it was a common   
   definition of science that he was using, but he could not name any other   
   scientists that used his definition.   
      
   You watched the bait and switch continue even after the loss in Dover.   
   The bait and switch went down on the Utah rubes at the same time that   
   the ID perps were putting out their Top Six in Nov. 2017.  The other   
   IDiots quit supporting the ID scam because they had never wanted any ID   
   science to be produced.  It would have just been more science for them   
   to deny.  Some ran and would not deal with the Top Six.  You had been an   
   IDiotic denialist, probably since you started posting.  You could not   
   give up on the gap denial even though you could not deal with the god   
   that would fill those gaps.   
      
   What type of dishonest religious creationists have always supported the   
   creationist ID bait and switch scam?   
      
   You are that type of creationist.  The science never mattered because no   
   ID science ever existed for you to support.   
      
   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 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)