From: the_thompsons@earthlink.net   
      
   MarkE wrote:   
   > On 10/09/2025 12:53 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:   
   >> 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 think you're being oversensitive here. I said it sounds like   
   >> gobbledegook- meaning I don't get it. That's why I asked for further   
   >> explanation.   
   >>   
   >> Athena got pissed off and turned Arachne into a spider. How is that   
   >> not "magic poofing"?   
   >>   
   >> A fable is a category of story that features anthropomorphic animals   
   >> or plants, and has some kind of moral that's made clear at the end.   
   >> Are you really saying creation stories don't have fables associated   
   >> with them?   
   >>   
   >> Chris   
   >>   
   >   
   > To use an Australian idiom, yeah nah. I'm not being oversensitive - it's   
   > business as usual for TO. Rather, your tone gives you away. But I do   
   > think you can do better.   
   >   
      
   OK Substitute "divine transformation" for "magic poofing". I stand by   
   the use of "fable" though. It's a legitimate, recognized term for a   
   narrative with particular characteristics.   
      
   Can you please answer my question now?   
      
   Chris   
      
      
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> -------   
   >>>   
   >>> * 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)