From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/26/2025 10:36 AM, sticks wrote:   
   > On 8/26/2025 3:21 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 19:22:22 -0500, sticks    
   >> wrote:   
   >   
   > ---snip---   
   >   
   >>> What I find interesting in the reply above is what appears to be this   
   >>> posters usual tactic of disregarding the issue and turning it into a   
   >>> religious attack.  The original post by Mark had nothing to do with   
   >>> religion.  It was from a scientist who has found some very real problems   
   >>> in his years of work regarding Naturalistic OoL, even though he   
   >>> initially began his adult life accepting most of the Darwinian Evolution   
   >>> he was taught.  Though he does speak of the very big problems science   
   >>> has to overcome in OoL research, he is kind enough to offer an   
   >>> explanation of how he thinks evolution minded scientists should proceed   
   >>> in the future.  Where progress might be found.  He seems fairly   
   >>> controlled and even-tempered, and certainly open-minded.  Exactly what a   
   >>> good researcher should be.  Peltzer gives example after example of   
   >>> naturalist failings, which the reply above completely ignores and goes   
   >>> off on the usual rant.  I don't find that unexpected, but I do find it   
   >>> rather boring and irrelevant.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> You have to understand the context and history around Mark's previous   
   >> posts on this subject.   
   >   
   > OK, guess I will have to try and get more of the posts read here before   
   > coming to hard conclusions.   
   >   
   >> Anyone who knows anything about OOL know that there are major gaps in   
   >> scientific explanation of how OLL came about and indeed many   
   >> scientists think we will probably never find adequate answers. Mark   
   >> keeps pointing out these gaps without offering any suggestion as to   
   >> how they might be closed as if repetitively reminding us of the gaps   
   >> is significant progress in itself. The reality is that he is simply   
   >> reinforcing his own belief that these gaps somehow strengthen the case   
   >> for God.   
   >   
   > I understand.  I am not so much interested in the religious aspects of   
   > the creation vs. naturalism debate here.  It is pointless until you   
   > personally get to a conclusion of the actual origin debate.  I want the   
   > science to help MY understanding of origins.  If someone decides   
   > naturalism doesn't work, it is another thing altogether to decide what   
   > to do with that decision and how they move forward living.  Yes,   
   > religion can become part of the debate if you look at how you view the   
   > evidence and if it fits into say a Biblical context or a naturalistic   
   > context.  For example the Young or Old Earth debates can make sense in   
   > one area, and not so much in the other.  The key for me is to simply not   
   > dismiss anyone's opinion simply because I look at things through a   
   > different paradigm.  I suppose on usenet that is often wishful thinking.   
   >   But, this group in particular I hope will be a little less so, since I   
   > think most of the participants are a little better educated than the   
   > average user.   
   >   
   >> I am a committed and practising Christian and I have many times   
   >> defended my beliefs in this group. The case for God, however, cannot   
   >> be based on gaps in scientific knowledge; it has to be based on   
   >> positive arguments about how belief in God deals with the stuff that   
   >> science *has* explained. Never mind, RonO and his obsession with ID,   
   >> as a committed Christian, I have challenged Mark to tackle this   
   >> question of how his understanding of God deals with this but he has   
   >> repeatedly declined to discuss it, insisting that the simple existence   
   >> of gaps is enough to show that God (aka the Intelligent Designer)   
   >> *must* have done it.   
   >   
   > I would certainly agree with that.  What interests me and my mostly   
   > layman's eye, are things that appear to be impossible from a naturalist   
   > perspective.  Things that point for the need of information, things that   
   > appear irreducibly complex, etc.  I'm sure I will probably ask questions   
   > on some of the things I've found like this, but I think I should   
   > probably try and read the post here first to not be redundant.   
   > Anyway, thanks for your thoughts!   
   >   
      
   In the decision against scientific creationism in 1987 it was noted that   
   gap denial was not science and did not support the creationists   
   religious beliefs.  Just because science does not yet have an   
   explanation for something is not support for Biblical creationism.  When   
   the ID perps put out their Top Six best evidences the ID supporters   
   still posting to TO had their faces rubbed in the fact that the gap   
   denial did not support their Biblical beliefs.  Most of them quit   
   supporting the ID creationist scam.  These were all hardcore IDiots that   
   had contiued to support the ID creationist bait and switch scam for over   
   a decade and a half after the bait and switch started to go down on any   
   creationist rube that believed the ID perps.  Not a single creationist   
   rube ever got any ID science from the the ID perps for over 23 years   
   since the start of the bait and switch in Ohio in 2002.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)