[donh]

massive computational attempts to look back in history, as proof, has little to do with science, and the obvious failure of such attempts, should they be made, would have no impact whatsoever on science.

You are playing games with words here

No. I am making the same point here that I just made above. Unmasterable complexity arguments without a state-space & a selection criteria most of the science community buys into, is so much brain-drizzle--not a scientific proof of anything.

[Tribune7]

No, you are playing word games.

massive computational attempts to look back in history, as proof, has little to do with science

So why did Sagan and Muncaster do it?

and the obvious failure of such attempts, should they be made, would have no impact whatsoever on science.

It seems they have an impact. Abiogenesis has fallen as a science. Getting life to sponateously arise from chemicals is akin to transmuting lead into gold. Except success is exponentially less likely.