From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 11/4/2025 1:51 PM, RonO wrote:   
    > On 11/4/2025 11:02 AM, sticks wrote:   
    >> On 11/4/2025 10:44 AM, sticks wrote:   
    >>> On 11/4/2025 9:36 AM, RonO wrote:   
    >>>> I asked Google: "Is there any legitimate scientific support for the   
    >>>> Discovery Institute's alleged intelligent design science?"   
    >>>>   
    >>>> The Google response was short and concise.   
    >>>   
    >>> I have been following this group and am beginning to get a better   
    >>> handle on it.  Before I spend any time debating your point of view,   
    >>> I would simply give you a link to another AI that is a little more   
    >>> balanced, and less biased by "consensus", in its answer.   
      
    >> Sorry, forgot the link   
    >>   
    >>    
      
    > No ID science on this link either.  Just claims that there might be   
    > something.  Can you point to anything that the Google summary was wrong   
    > about there being any ID science.  Can you confirm that any legitimate   
    > ID science exists?  It is laughable that they claim support in the   
    > scientific literature when you likely can't find a single peer reviewed   
    > article in a legitimate scientific journal that presents any valid ID   
    > science.  Even Meyer's retracted paper did not contain any ID science   
    > just Cambrian explosion gap denial that even other ID perps can't stand.   
      
   I'm probably not going to get into a debate about what is considered   
   "science" with you when you won't recognize any of it anyway.  The big   
   difference between the Google and Grok response is that Google goes by   
   the consensus opinion that anything ID related is pseudoscience.  Grok   
   doesn't do that.  For example, you would not consider any analysis of   
   work done by the EV people from an ID proponent valid, simply because it   
   requires the supernatural.  Yet, that is one of the big things happening   
   in ID right now, and it gets worse with the more revelations science and   
   research has done.  You would call this God of the Gaps, I suppose.  Of   
   course, your religion, Darwin of the Gaps, does the exact same thing.   
   Where the ID scientist might say here's why we believe this is   
   impossible, the EV scientist would say we just have to keep looking.   
      
   We differ in that we encourage your/all research, while you mock it.   
   For me personally, the question is why?  While you call anything an ID   
   person would do pseudoscience on one hand, you then go on and on about   
   doing something to prove ID, and when they present arguments for it   
   dismiss them because they require something supernatural.  People like   
   me simply don't care what you consider proper science.  I am interested   
   in why the ID researchers bother you so much that you insist on   
   persecuting them the way you do.  I don't find that you do it either new   
   or unique, I just find the motivation interesting.   
      
    > Even the ID perps did not claim that their Top Six god-of-the-gaps   
   ---snip---   
      
   I am simply not interested in your interpretation of any of this.  I've   
   read it all countless times here, even wasted some hours on the   
   talk.origins website reading things you then said were outdated.  All of   
   it is up to interpretation, and even the importance of much of it is   
   debatable.  Many things EV think are "discoveries" end up being things   
   ID proponents would expect to see, just for a different reason.   
      
   I am also not interested in your continuing attacks about the Katzmiller   
   case.  It means nothing to me or my opinion on origins about what   
   happened in some court case decided by a judge in a shit show of a   
   trial.  Yes, I've read many of the parties involved and their work, but   
   how they handled a trial is irrelevant to me.  For you, the winning   
   outcome is of utmost importance.  It's all that matters.  Some judge   
   said it was not science.  This cannot be in schools.  That alone is   
   laughable to me, yet I completely understand why he did it.  You go on   
   and on, I guess about their ultimate motive being to have religion   
   taught in schools.  I would agree that society should have a separation   
   between church and state and don't think any of this can be done   
   properly in today's school system.  I would rather it was not.  Yet,   
   your religion of materialism, does the same thing you accuse the ID   
   people of.  You do it here all the time.  You spit out figures like   
   millions of years, you seem to give Darwin's natural selection powers a   
   rational person might think it doesn't have, and many other things you   
   treat as proven fact, when in reality they are all theories.  If you   
   would only say, "We believe" things happened like this it would be more   
   palatable, but you don't.  I don't respond to this stuff usually, I just   
   notice it and find it less than truthful.   
      
   When it really comes down to it, most of the stuff you think you know,   
   is never a threat to my beliefs.  Most is either expected, interpreted   
   in silly ways, based on faulty assumptions, or just outright theoretical   
   guesses that align with materialism.  EV never seems to connect the   
   dots.  That's OK, I would expect everyone to keep looking.  Yet if you   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)