From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/2/2025 12:16 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:   
   > On 8/29/25 5:41 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >> On 29/08/2025 1:53 am, Mark Isaak wrote:   
   >>> On 8/23/25 6:06 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>> On 22/08/2025 11:19 pm, RonO wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Ron, this post is not about the Bible or any particular   
   >>>> interpretation of it. The interview cited is only science.   
   >>>> Ironically, your bluster and misdirection serve to "deny the science".   
   >>>   
   >>> How do you reconcile your views with theism?  You're effectively   
   >>> telling god what god can and cannot do.  In my view, that means   
   >>> placing yourself above God, which demotes God to non-god status.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> My approach is to avoid conflating science and theology. Therefore, I   
   >> generally discuss the science only. My theological beliefs are not   
   >> relevant to interpreting science.   
      
   MarkE has always appeared to be sane enough to understand that he is   
   just lying to himself about his approach to gap denial.  He understands   
   that what is understood around the gaps has already destroyed his   
   theological Biblical beliefs.  He is into god-of-the-gaps denial for the   
   same reason that the YEC scientific creationists would use the origin of   
   life gap denial.  Even if they filled in the gap with some god it would   
   not be the god that they worshiped, and they were just using the gap   
   denial to lie to themselves about that reality.  Look how the YEC still   
   use the Big Bang gap denial in order to support their religious beliefs,   
   but a lot of them have enough on the ball to know that they do not want   
   their kids understanding anything about the Big Bang, and several states   
   have wanted to drop it out of their science standards along with   
   biological evolution.  Kansas succeeded until enough creationists on   
   that state school board were voted out and the standards could be   
   restored to something legitimate.  A lot of them understand that the   
   gaps do not support their religious beliefs.   
      
   Look at Bill.  When he figured out that the ID perp gap denial wasn't   
   anything that he wanted to support he started into his "reality doesn't   
   exist" lame argument.  Bill understands that it isn't the gaps, but the   
   reality that the gaps exist in that counter his religious beliefs, so   
   reality has to be wrong.   
      
   MarkE is using the gap denial to support his religious beliefs, so he   
   has to lie about his theological beilefs not being relevant, when they   
   are the reason why he needs to wallow in the denial.  If the gaps did   
   not challenge is theology he would not have to claim that the gaps are   
   never going to be filled.   
      
   >>   
   >> All the same, I'm happy to discuss my faith and have done so here. So   
   >> to reiterate my approach:   
   >>   
   >> In my opinion, growing scientific understanding of the functional   
   >> complexity of even minimal life is leading to deepening problems with   
   >> abiogenesis. As a consequence, consideration of a supernatural   
   >> explanation becomes increasingly warranted as a rational response to   
   >> scientific evidence.   
   >>   
   >> It's not an either/or; it's not a suggestion to abandon science. Keep   
   >> doing science, but don't rule out supernatural explanation. Moreover,   
   >> do so with these in mind:   
   >>   
   >> - don't be too hasty to appeal to the supernatural -- that is the god-   
   >> of-the-gaps error;   
   >> - recognise the boundary of science, i.e. that science cannot, by   
   >> definition, tell us anything about a hypothesised supernatural cause.   
   >>   
   >> Some will only consider natural explanations because science has no   
   >> access to the supernatural, or an erroneous belief that science is the   
   >> only possible source of knowledge. That's akin to a child putting   
   >> their hands over their eyes and declaring you can't see them.   
   >   
   > So when a natural explanation for abiogenesis is found, God goes poof?   
   >   
      
   His god has already gone poof due to what is understood about nature   
   around the origin of life gap.  The god that would fill the gap is not   
   his Biblical god.  Just like Bill he is into the IDiotic god-of-the-gaps   
   denial because he needs to lie to himself about reality.  When Bill gave   
   up on the gap denial he had to resort to denying that reality exists.   
      
   It is the reason that MarkE refuses to make a straightforward statement   
   about how filling the gap with some god would affect his Biblical   
   creationist beliefs.  When I commented on the fact that MarkE had spent   
   a lot of effort working out what was known about the origin of life gap   
   in order to claim that it was never going to be filled, and that what   
   was around the gap was not Biblical, MarkE ran instead of face that   
   reality.  When he came back with the argument he would not face that   
   reality, and started claiming that his religious beliefs were not   
   pertinent to the gap denial when his religious beliefs are the reason   
   for his gap denial.   
      
   For YEC and many old earth creationists the god that fills the origin of   
   life gap would be a false god.  It would not be the god described in the   
   Bible.  The Reason to Believe old earth creationists are likely no   
   longer IDiotic supporters of the ID scam because the Top Six gap   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)