Article <vjo6a8$vgg8$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<vjo6a8$vgg8$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.szaf.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ool - out at first base?
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:20:36 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 134
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vjo6a8$vgg8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vjak6b$16l6r$1@dont-email.me> <vjhjul$3fj8c$1@dont-email.me>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="19817"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ckKnH1p2ups6Liqtu16gVNIVhFY=
In-Reply-To: <puqtljpfr6i6fs7ctorh845qke5eves91q@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,
	USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org
Bytes: 8924

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.

> 
> 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?).

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


> 
> 
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your arbitrary requirement that I "offer some ideas about how or why
>>>> [God] did it that way" or else I am "offering nothing so that means your
>>>> argument is worth nothing" says something about where you're coming from.
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>> * Example of a theory disproved without an alternative being offered:
>>>>
>>>> The Caloric Theory
>>>> The caloric theory posited that heat was a fluid-like substance, called
>>>> "caloric", that flowed from hot objects to cold ones. This theory was
>>>> widely accepted because it explained certain phenomena, such as the
>>>> transfer of heat and the expansion of gases when heated.
>>>>
>>>> The Disproof
>>>> In 1798, Benjamin Thompson (Count Rumford) conducted a groundbreaking
>>>> experiment during the boring of cannons. He observed that enormous
>>>> amounts of heat were generated by friction, seemingly without any
>>>> depletion of a material "caloric" substance. His experiments
>>>> demonstrated that heat could be produced indefinitely by mechanical
>>>> work, challenging the idea that heat was a conserved fluid.
>>>>
>>>> However, while Rumford's findings refuted the caloric theory, a
>>>> comprehensive alternative explanation-what we now understand as heat as
>>>> energy transfer and the kinetic theory of heat-was not yet fully developed.
>>>
>>> So what experiments have taken place that show OOL not to be due to
>>> natural causes?
>>>
>>> Note: [probability argument] !=experimentation.
>>>
>>>> The Transition Period
>>>> It wasn't until the mid-19th century, with the work of James Prescott
>>>> Joule, Hermann von Helmholtz, and others, that the modern thermodynamic
>>>> understanding of heat as a form of energy was established. Joule's
>>>> experiments in particular quantified the relationship between mechanical
>>>> work and heat, leading to the formulation of the first law of
>>>> thermodynamics (energy conservation).
>>>>
>>>> Why This Matters
>>>> This case illustrates how science can enter a transitional phase where
>>>> an established theory is refuted,
>>>
>>> I stand open to correction but I don't see anyone claiming that
>>> current ideas on OOL are at the *established theory*; as far as I can
>>> see, they are just possible natural explanations yet to be proven.
>>>
>>>> but a replacement theory has not yet
>>>> emerged. During such periods, scientific progress often relies on
>>>> accumulating experimental evidence and conceptual groundwork before a
>>>> new paradigm can be articulated.
>>>
>>> So what experimental evidence and conceptual groundwork are you
>>> offering regarding your supernatural causes paradigm?
>>>
>>>> The disproof of caloric theory paved
>>>> the way for the modern understanding of energy, despite the temporary
>>>> gap in explanatory frameworks.
>>>
>