From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/5/2025 6:01 PM, sticks wrote:   
   > On 11/5/2025 8:12 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 4 Nov 2025 10:44:39 -0600, sticks    
   >> wrote:   
   >> [...]   
   >>   
   >>> I'm sure you'll love my sig   
   >>   
   >> It's one of those soundbites that seems very clever until you think   
   >> about what it is actually saying.   
   >   
   > Nice backhand.  But, do you really think I haven't thought about the   
   > meaning of what I wrote?  Many things are problematic with Darwin's   
   > theory and materialism for me.  My comment to Mr. O about not ever   
   > connecting the dots is something that is a reality and important for me   
   > in my understanding of origins.  So, I'll give you one example of   
   > something I have a problem with, and I assume the materialist doesn't.   
   >   
   > This is really a metaphysical question, and nothing new.  Yet, I find if   
   > I go back to the beginning it creates a huge problem for me in believing   
   > in an origin scenario along naturalistic lines.  Somehow materialists   
   > have convinced the world they have the answer in how all this started   
   > with the Big Bang Theory.  Yes, there are problems with the theory   
   > people are still trying to work out, but I am not referring to either   
   > that or inflation.   
   >   
   > I am talking about where the stuff came from the theory claims caused   
   > the Big Bang.  You can speak about quantum theory and mostly that's   
   > above my pay grade, and none of it ultimately matters.  For me it still   
   > has to have had a cause for existence.  The laws of thermodynamics and   
   > basic logic would tell you it had to come from somewhere, or else you   
   > are left with only two alternatives.  Today, everything we can see   
   > scientists can trace the origins of back to their theory of the Big   
   > Bang.  Everything except where that stuff came from.   
      
   Your point of view is just wrong.  Science can only deal with what it   
   can determine exists.  It is the religious faction that wants to believe   
   in some deity, and it is that religious faction that can't deal with   
   reality.  They have to claim that their god exists outside of this   
   universe and does things in mystical magical unknowable ways, so Science   
   can't deal with their god as they define it.  Science can only deal with   
   what can be determined to exist.   
      
   The IDiotic twist is that if some designer exists in nature, and is   
   responsible for doing things that can be observed about nature, then   
   such a designer could be subject to scientific investigation.  What has   
   held back the ID perps is that a lot of them still want their designer   
   to exist outside of our universe and remain undetectable.  Behe has   
   progressed the furthest in terms of allowing his designer to be   
   detectable, but even he resorts to "puffs of smoke" instead of dealing   
   with the straight observations that might be possible.  Behe keeps   
   making the claims, and refusing to validate his claims.  He claims that   
   he is not responsible for testing his junk.  In the Kitzmiller court   
   case Behe testified that IC was testable, and put up a bogus test, but   
   admitted that he had never attempted such testing, and he has never   
   attempted any such testing since.  The point is that if the ID perps   
   could use science to detect the existence of a designer, such a designer   
   would have to be working in nature, and nature is known not to be Biblical.   
      
   The Top Six caused the IDiots to quit the ID scam because it   
   demonstrated what any legitimate ID science would have demonstrated   
   about existing reality.  If the ID perps had ever been able to   
   demonstrate that their designer was responsible for filling their Top   
   Six gaps, the Biblical beliefs of probably all IDiotic type creationists   
   would have been scientifically disproven. If they were the creationist   
   types that needed to be lied to by the ID perps, they would not have   
   been able to deal with ID science demonstrating the existence of a non   
   Biblical god.   
      
   ID perps like Behe understand that the "Big Tent" propaganda of the ID   
   perps has always been a lie.  Behe has been telling the rubes that the   
   flagellum evolved by design over a billion years ago from the start of   
   the modern ID scam.  The ID perps lied that their ID science was   
   friendly to all creationist types.  Real science could never support all   
   the creationists beliefs from YEC to theistic evolutionists.  There is   
   only one nature for Science to study, and nature is not Biblical.  The   
   fact that nature is not Biblical has been understood since Saint   
   Augustine made note of that fact over 1500 years ago.  His admonishment   
   was about Christian should not use the Bible to deny what we could   
   figure out about nature.  That admonishment has held through the   
   centuries.  There are very few flat-earth creationists, hopefully, not   
   many more geocentric creationists, probably no one believes that the   
   Biblical firmament exists, and young earth creationism should have died   
   long ago.  The only Biblical creationists that ID could have ever   
   supported are the creationists that have acknowledged that the Bible is   
   wrong about nature, and that all that can be expected is to understand   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)