From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/11/2025 1:56 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   You know that the Bible claims nothing about how life actually began on   
   this planet.  What it does claim has been found to be wrong.  There   
   should be evidence for the creation in 6 days or periods of time.  There   
   should be evidence that the order of the periods of time could be the   
   order of when things were created, but that order has been falsified.   
   Plants were not the first lifeforms created.  The sun and moon were not   
   created after land plants.   
      
   You can't use the Bible as support for anything about the creation.   
      
   This does not stop you from wallowing in the gap denial, just so that   
   you can lie to yourself about that reality.  No matter how life arose on   
   this planet is no support for your Biblical beliefs, because it   
   obviously would have arisen in a non Biblical fashion.   
      
   Ron Okimoto>   
   >>   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)