Re: Ool - out at first base?

On 12/15/24 7:20 PM, MarkE wrote:

On 16/12/2024 1:53 am, Martin Harran wrote:
 <snip>
 

>
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.

Lord Kelvin once put forward a problem that showed, with more logical soundness and scientific basis than your posts, that the earth could not be hundreds of millions of years old. And yet it is. Kelvin did not know about a feature of the natural world that invalidated his "problems".
What makes you think that you know enough about the universe to think that the problems you put forward will not likewise be obviated by further research?
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell