From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 16:11:24 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 12:56:27 +0000, the following appeared   
   >in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran   
   >:   
   >   
   >>On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 23:00:03 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   >>wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:21:45 -0600, the following appeared   
   >>>in talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd   
   >>>:   
   >>>   
   >>>>Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >>>>> On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:41:22 +0000, the following appeared   
   >>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran   
   >>>>> :   
   >>>>>    
   >>>>>> On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:24:23 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>>>> [...]   
   >>>>>>> As I said, "This post is not an opportunity to dive down the hundred   
   >>>>>>> rabbit holes that this overview touches on." The micro/macro question   
   is   
   >>>>>>> _the_ evolution debate.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Simply clarifying whether you accept that humans are members of the   
   >>>>>> ape family, all evolved from a common ancestor, or whether you think   
   >>>>>> humans were created separately as a standalone species doesn't involve   
   >>>>>> any rabbit holes.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> Of course it doesn't. If this discussion were a football   
   >>>>> game (US type), he'd be a star receiver; he can weave and   
   >>>>> dodge with the best of them.   
   >>>>>    
   >>>>> (Still waiting for that info regarding the "Increased   
   >>>>> traction" for ID...)   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Here it is:   
   >>>>   
   >>>Yeah, that was my take, too:   
   >>>   
   >>>1) Assert.   
   >>>2) When asked for evidence, ignore or waffle.   
   >>>3) Reassert.   
   >>>   
   >>>Lather, rinse, repeat.   
   >>>>   
   >>   
   >>He kinda tried to move away from that (without actually retracting it)   
   >>by starting a new thread  "Observe the trend. It's happening. Give it   
   >>time."   
   >>   
   >>In that new thread, however, he basically just regurgitated previous   
   >>claims and a couple of new references [1] about the shortfalls in   
   >>current scientific knowledge. He didn't give anything that supports an   
   >>increase in support for ID.   
   >>   
   >I did see that waffling, but jillery says he "clarified" his   
   >original claim by restricting it to refer to the general   
   >population.   
      
      
   *******************************************   
   On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 22:43:05 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
      
   >ID is described as "a pseudoscientific argument" on Wikipedia [1],    
   >there's clearly no love for it here, and as far as I know ID has limited    
   >recognition within mainstream science. The general public's awareness    
   >and support of ID I believe is higher but still constrained.   
   *********************************************   
      
   --    
   To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)