Article <ldh0mjdu8asvaikj3ph6mn7mgf0sb6vgdr@4ax.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<ldh0mjdu8asvaikj3ph6mn7mgf0sb6vgdr@4ax.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ool - out at first base?
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 13:07:26 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 115
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <ldh0mjdu8asvaikj3ph6mn7mgf0sb6vgdr@4ax.com>
References: <d9754db8-9c88-40c4-8376-162d08f2f7d5@gmail.com> <vjj5q5$3scn7$1@dont-email.me> <ghgqljhmg67bcn07hr65h7el42s8bcr39a@4ax.com> <vjjoip$3vd3m$1@dont-email.me> <8gqqljd2at10o4dc137avfugiscjg91g7g@4ax.com> <vjjs8c$1cp$1@dont-email.me> <cu4rlj5lvme1gekehdb1df37c1llon6fto@4ax.com> <vjln70$di5m$1@dont-email.me> <n73tljhrs67n2dfa8ablfc6obgrnm2qn5f@4ax.com> <vjmhs4$ijml$2@dont-email.me> <puqtljpfr6i6fs7ctorh845qke5eves91q@4ax.com> <vjo6a8$vgg8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="72729"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3ACeoQ0YgQOwKf9eLXHZGztjDvU=
Bytes: 7516

On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:20:36 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 16/12/2024 1:53 am, Martin Harran wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>>> No, wrong. Demonstrating an existing theory to be false has no
>>>>> requirement to provide and demonstrate a viable alternative*.
>>>>
>>>> In regard to demonstrating a theory to be false, you haven't done
>>>> that, all you have done is identify areas that have not been
>>>> explained, at least not yet. There is nothing at all unusual about
>>>> that in science. Darwin's ToE was initially unable to explain how
>>>> traits and characteristics got passed on between generations; it took
>>>> Mendel to do that. In making his claims about heliocentrism, Galileo
>>>> was unable to explain tides and stellar parallax, it took a couple of
>>>> centuries to sort all that out. In neither case were the claims false.
>>>>
>>>> You seem incapable or unwilling to grasp that *unexplained* does not
>>>> equate to *wrong*.
>>>>
>>>> In regard to a viable alternative, you have put an alternative forward
>>>> - supernatural causes - but you have provided nothing whatsoever to
>>>> support its viability. Again, you seem incapable or unwilling to grasp
>>>> that even if A is wrong,that does not automatically mean that B is
>>>> right, that B needs to stand on its own grounds. That is the
>>>> fundamental flaw in ID which is what you constantly mimic.
>>>
>>> Not playing tit-for-tat, but I return a similar criticism: you seem
>>> incapable or unwilling to grasp or maintain a coherent focus on the
>>> content, logic and qualifications of my argument.
>> 
>> Content: OOL is too complicated and too many unexplained gaps to be
>> due to natural processes.
>
>I've been putting forward problems that have been described as a paradox 
>(e.g. tar), or that I'm suggesting may have P = 0 (e.g. warm little pond 
>continuous operation over millions of years). That is, I'm looking at 
>potential showstoppers, no just "too complicated" or "too many 
>unexplained gaps". At the same time noting that there is a degree of 
>subjectivity and overlap in these categorisations. And of course, in 
>each case supporting evidence is needed.

OK, change my summary to:

"Content: OOL is too complicated, too improbable and too many
unexplained gaps to be due to natural processes."

Seems like a difference that makes no difference.

>
>> 
>> Logic: because of that complexity and those gaps, ideas and
>> explanations based on natural processes must be wrong - therefore OOL
>> must have been due to supernatural causes.
>> 
>> Have I missed anything in those two parts?
>> 
>> I'm not sure what qualifications you mean, I may have missed them.
>
>A key qualification is my option 1 and 2 proposal, which is much more 
>nuanced than your summary.
>
>That said, I do appreciate your engagement with these ideas and your 
>willingness to concede the point below. And I may need to more carefully 
>consider some of the objections raised by yourself and others (what 
>would you suggest they might be?).

My suggestions:

#1
Drop the probability arguments. Once something has happened, the
probability of it having happened is totally irrelevant. The odds of
anyone winning the Irish Lotto jackpot are one in 10.5 million. The
jackpot is likely to be worn sometime within the next few weeks;
whoever wins it, the 10.5 million to 1 odds of them having done so are
irrelevant.

#2
If you are talking about God, then talk about God; stop using weasel
words like "designer" and "supernatural causes". It just sounds as if
you don't have confidence in or are embarrassed talking about the God
you believe in.

#3
Stop trying to 'prove' your God hypothesis on the basis of gaps in the
potential pathways suggested by others; you have to show arguments
supporting your hypothesis in its own right.

#4
In regard to making your case to the science community, you need to
offer some kind of suggestion as to how God might have gone about
this; for example, you need to explain why he fiddled about with the
precursors to your first protocell.

#5
In regard to making your case to religious believers, you need to
offer some explanation of how you get from God fiddling about with
protocells to us having a relationship with him and him sending his
son to us.

That should be enough to be going on with!


>
>To recap some points:
>
>- If the tar paradox is connected with configurational entropy, then 
>that is potentially a hard stop
>
>- If the first protocell must have a warm little pond or connected ponds 
>supplying concentrated activated canonical nucleotides continuously for 
>millions of years, this may arguably be a geological impossibility
>
[...]