Re: Ool - out at first base?

On 18/12/2024 12:07 am, Martin Harran wrote:

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.

When you say, "Once something has happened", I assume you're applying this to life happening. It goes without saying that life happened, and assuming you're not stating the obvious, I deduce you're saying that life happened in a particular way - i.e. by naturalistic means, as a given. Could you clarify your point?
Regardless, at the core of the origins question is probability. For example, Dawkins book title "Climbing Mount Improbable" demonstrates precisely this. Why was it written? To address a legitimate question - a question of probability.
I'm interested to hear your response to this before addressing your other suggestions.

 #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
>

[...]