“it’s down the rabbit-hole for me”
What are 2 statements that didn’t make sense?

“What are 2 examples of a ‘random ‘choice'”?
“A throw of the dice”
Suppose we give Mother Nature a 20-sided die, each side representing 1 of 20 possible amino acids. She is trying to put together an organism that needs a particular sequence of 100 AAs for oxygen to be carried in its blood– if any AA is missing, or any wrong AA is had in any location, the organism She’s trying to give rise to won’t be able to carry oxygen in its blood.
Suppose Mother Nature throws the 20-sided die 100 times every second. How many seconds of throwing the die will it take for Her to have a 95% probability of coming across the exactly-needed 100 amino acid sequence?

“unworthy argumentative tactic of yours. Putting words in people’s mouths”
I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Where did those 3 scientists think life came from?

a reviewer of
_Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature_ (1981) by atheist Francis Crick of ‘double helix’ fame

….the theory he presents (at times well): that an advanced extraterrestrial society had deliberately seeded Earth with life by sending elemental life forms on a rocket ship over a vast distance. He was of the old school that believed distances between Earth and other inhabitable worlds is too vast for any advanced life forms to travel personally, and this antiquates part of his theory, but his observations about DNA and other aspects of life on Earth are thought-provoking.

“There is the sense that we’re not getting anywhere with all this”
Who is “we”?
Speaking for myself, I’m learning things.

“a concern that our more-than-patient Robert is bound to feel put-upon having to deal with it”
“Put-upon” by who or what?

“that’s not evidence for your claim”
I claim that ‘Shimon G-r-b-a’ is better rendered as ‘Shimon G-r-b-a/ Pot/ Jug/ Pottery” (just as there is a ‘Shimon Keepa/ Rock,’ i.e. ‘Simon Peter’), than as ‘Simon the Leper.’

John 1:42 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said,
“You are Simon son of John.
You will be called Cephas”
(which, when translated, is Peter).

Note the Greek translation’s added gloss.

John 1:42-43 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
42 And he brought him to Yeshua
and Yeshua gazed at him and he said:
“You are Shimeon, son of Yona;
you shall be called Kaypha.”
43 And the next day Yeshua wanted to depart to Galilee….

G-r-b-a was regularly used as pot/ jar/ skin (as a container for liquids, e.g. water and wine).
Evidence: the CAL and certain dictionaries, both of which supply citations to Aramaic documents that used g-r-b-a in that way.

Matthew 26 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
6 While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper,
7 a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.
8 When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked.

2 Chronicles 26:21 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
King Uzziah had leprosy until the day he died. He lived in a separate house— leprous, and banned from the temple of the LORD. Jotham his son had charge of the palace and governed the people of the land.

Leviticus 13 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
43 The priest is to examine him, and if the swollen sore on his head or forehead is reddish-white like a defiling skin disease,
44 the man is diseased and is unclean. The priest shall pronounce him unclean because of the sore on his head.
45 “Anyone with such a defiling disease must wear torn clothes, let their hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of their face and cry out, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’
46 As long as they have the disease they remain unclean. They must live alone; they must live outside the camp.

“continue to ignore the contrary evidence I cited for you”
I wasn’t impressed with that “contrary evidence.”

Luke 17
** you do not have permission to see this link **
11 Now on his way to Jerusalem, Jesus traveled along the border between Samaria and Galilee.
12 As he was going into a village, ten men who had leprosy met him.
They stood at a distance
13 and called out in a loud voice, “Jesus, Master, have pity on us!”

“You conjecture that maybe Simon was given this nickname, but is that not merely wishful thinking and special pleading on your part?”
You can call it whatever you like.
If you choose to believe that the text originally said that a leper entertained in his house Jesus and Jesus’ students and the alabaster jar woman, that’s your choice.
If you choose to believe that Acts originally said that an Ethiopian eunuch was going to Jerusalem to worship (presumably in the temple, which prohibited entrance to those having damaged testicles), that’s your choice.

“Do you have any evidence of a person ever being called a Pot/Jug/Pottery in Aramaic?”
No.
Simon was given the name Rock.
Dorcas was called Gazelle.
Barabbas was called Son of Father.
Barnabas was called Son of Encouragement.

“concede the point and admit when you’re wrong”
I was mistaken in thinking that a particular word meant ‘potter.’
I now believe the word means ‘pot.’

As you look at the Greek Luke 7:47, do you agree with Torrey that, “this passage is not merely ‘difficult,’ the trouble is incurable– in the Grk.”?

_Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence_ (1936), 172pp. by Charles Cutler Torrey. On 98, 100-101
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Exhibit XVII. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic.
….
c. Lk. 7:47 ac. to Grk.: Therefore I say to you,
THAT HER many sins are forgiven (…[snipping Hebrew/Aramaic characters]…),
FOR SHE LOVED MUCH (…[snipping Hebrew/Aramaic characters]…),
but he to whom little is forgiven will love little.

True rendering: Therefore I say to you,
SHE WHOSE many sins are forgiven (same words)
WILL LOVE MUCH (same words),
but he to whom little is forgiven will love little.
….
Exhibit XVII, C (Lk. 7:47). This passage is not merely “difficult,” the trouble is incurable– in the Grk. Jesus indicates to Simon that he has a lesson for him, and the Pharisee listens politely, perhaps not eagerly. Jesus then shows, in a clear-cut little parable, what he wished to establish as his major premise: A debtor released from his debt is grateful in proportion to his feeling of relief from the burden. Simon assents, and waits for the application. When, however, Jesus proceeds to show how his parable applies to _the forgiveness of sins_, our Grk. version suddenly turns aside with an announcement (introduced by “therefore”) out of keeping with what had preceded. The parable need not have been uttered. The argument is turned upside down, leaving Simon (and the rest of us) in bewilderment. The despair of interpreters, ancient and modern, is only too well known. Among recent commentators, Klostermann and Lagrange discuss the problem from all sides, but are obliged to leave it unsolved. Wellhausen tries to rewrite the Greek. Easton finds three distinct strata in the little section.

In the Aram., everything is clear; Jesus’ lesson to Simon is really given, and the application of the parable is now perfect. As was remarked in _The Four Gospels_, the cause of the mistranslation was misunderstanding of the particle di [- over i], which here was the relative pronoun, not the conjunction. Any student of Aram. who looks at the restored text (above) will see at once how very natural Lk.’s mistake was, and how certainly the right interpretation of the ambiguous particle restores the original reading. Lk.’s manner of dealing with his circumstantial participle, which he properly renders “for she loved,” hardly needs comment. The past tense of his translation was of course prescribed by the preceding Aram. participle.

This is not an instance of wrong vocalization, for no change of any sort is needed in the Aram. text. The passage is introduced here merely for the sake of juxtaposition with the preceding example.