From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/10/2025 7:04 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   > On 10/09/2025 12:53 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:   
   >> MarkE wrote:   
   >>> On 7/09/2025 12:28 pm, Chris Thompson wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>> This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that   
   >>>>> scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science providing   
   >>>>> evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - evidence   
   >>>>> from science giving reason to consider explanations beyond the   
   >>>>> reach of science.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start with   
   >>>> one simple question: what has religion produced in the last 2000   
   >>>> years, as far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a few   
   >>>> books that describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of fables, like   
   >>>> those featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of Australian   
   >>>> Aboriginal people. And at least a few hundred others. None of these   
   >>>> seem to be any more reliable than the rest. Why hasn't religion   
   >>>> settled on one, or at least a few similar hypotheses? Just because   
   >>>> science has been doing other stuff should not have held theologians   
   >>>> back from working on this.   
   >>>   
   >>> I agree that we don't need to wait 1000 years, that's an overly   
   >>> conservative number for the exercise. OOL research is already   
   >>> progressively revealing inadequacies in naturalistic explanations of   
   >>> even a protocell*.   
   >>>   
   >>> But I digress. This discussion is a reasonably careful attempt to   
   >>> define and delineate epidemiological categories and their   
   >>> application. Thoughtful opposing contributions welcome. However,   
   >>> statements like "sounds like gobbledygook", "magic poofing", and "a   
   >>> bunch of fables" are standard TO fare and a lazy category error.   
   >>>   
   >>> I believe you can do better.   
   >>   
   >> I think you're being oversensitive here. I said it sounds like   
   >> gobbledegook- meaning I don't get it. That's why I asked for further   
   >> explanation.   
   >>   
   >> Athena got pissed off and turned Arachne into a spider. How is that   
   >> not "magic poofing"?   
   >>   
   >> A fable is a category of story that features anthropomorphic animals   
   >> or plants, and has some kind of moral that's made clear at the end.   
   >> Are you really saying creation stories don't have fables associated   
   >> with them?   
   >>   
   >> Chris   
   >>   
   >   
   > To use an Australian idiom, yeah nah. I'm not being oversensitive - it's   
   > business as usual for TO. Rather, your tone gives you away. But I do   
   > think you can do better.   
      
   Sadly, you are the usual for TO for over 2 decades.  You may have been   
   posting for over 25 years.  You started posting as a seemingly   
   reasonable creationist that would even show amusement at the stupid   
   antics of the scientific creationist types that were still posting at   
   the turn of the century.  They were still trying to support their   
   Biblical beliefs with more than gap denial.  Karl Crawford had his   
   woodpecker denial (that the ID perps are resurrecting), but he also   
   tried to defend the flood mythology.  Some posters were putting up   
   chariot wheels found in the Red Sea, and man as old as coal fossils.   
   There were posters seriously trying to fit all the needed kinds on the   
   ark and trying to fit in enough food to feed them for a year.   
      
   ID had already come to TO as something that creationists wanted to teach   
   in the public schools, but none of the supporters seem to know what it   
   was nor what would be taught in the public schools.  The Wedge document   
   had already been exposed, and the ID perps were still pushing the teach   
   ID scam full speed ahead.  They published their teach ID scam propaganda   
   booklet in 1999, and the Utah law review article in 2000.  They started   
   to make a big deal about the Santorum "amendment" to the no child left   
   behind legislation, but their draft never got into the legislation and   
   was published in a report on the conference where it had been submitted   
   for inclusion.  All just stupid lies, and you understand that they never   
   had the ID science to teach in the public schools.  You witnessed the   
   bait and switch begin to go down on hapless creationist rubes in 2002,   
   and the bait and switch has continued to this day.  You were likely   
   posting on ARN when Mike Gene admitted that he had given up on teaching   
   the ID junk in the public schools back in 1999.  The ID perps never   
   stopped selling the teach ID scam, and they have never stopped running   
   the bait and switch on hapless creationist rubes like yourself.  You   
   witnessed the bait and switch fail in Dover, and the ID perps screwed up   
   and had to try to defend the bogus scam.  Half the ID perps ran and did   
   not testify when the name change of intelligent design from creationism   
   in Of Pandas and People was exposed.  The Wiki claims that Behe may have   
   committed perjury by first claiming that ID was a scientific theory, but   
   under cross examination he had to admit that it was only a scientific   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)