From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/09/2025 12:48 am, Chris Thompson wrote:   
   > 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?   
      
   This question? "What has religion produced in the last 2000 years, as   
   far as tangible results about the OOL?"   
      
   As I commented to JH, no-one is expecting the Bible (or any other   
   religious text) provide a journal article detailing how God created   
   life, nor is anyone asking science to answer metaphysical 'why'   
   questions of meaning and purpose. They are different knowledge domains   
   with different (though overlapping) ways of approaching knowledge.   
      
   That's in no way being evasive. It is very different approach to what   
   science offers. Given the choice, I'll take empirical, objective   
   verification as well. But that's just not how it works.   
      
   >   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)