From: nospam@buzz.off   
      
   On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 02:57:35 -0400, the following appeared   
   in talk.origins, posted by jillery <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.   
   >*********************************************   
   >   
   Thanks for the repost; as I said, I missed it.   
      
   If he intended that to be evidence for his claim of   
   "increased traction" for ID, IMHO it failed miserably.   
   >   
   --   
      
   Bob C.   
      
   "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,   
    the one that heralds new discoveries, is not   
    'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"   
      
   - Isaac Asimov   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)