From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 11/10/2025 7:48 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Sun, 9 Nov 2025 19:12:23 -0600, sticks    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 11/6/2025 3:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>> On Wed, 5 Nov 2025 18:01:20 -0600, sticks    
   >>> wrote:   
   >   
   > I am snipping quite a lot here for focus; if there is anything I have   
   > taken out that you think would have been better left in, please   
   > indicate or restore it.   
   >   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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?   
   >>>   
   >>> If you have thought about it, perhaps you can explain why you think   
   >>> that non-scientists understand science better than scientists.   
   >>   
   >> Of course, I've said nothing of the kind.   
   >   
   > Your sig is "Science doesn't support Darwin.  Scientists do.". Who is   
   > concluding that science doesn't support Darwin?   
      
   If you want to get pedantic, obviously me since it is my sig.  But are   
   you really saying you have not heard this before?  Would you feel better   
   if my stance on this was this instead:  The Evidence Doesn't Support   
   Darwin.  Scientists Do.   
      
   >>> With respect, that is where your thinking starts to get confused.   
   >>> First of all, you treat "materialist" and "scientist" as   
   >>> interchangeable synonyms but they are not. A scientist does not have   
   >>> to be materialist and many aren't. Just to take one example; you're   
   >>> talking here about the Big Bang, are you aware that the original Big   
   >>> Bang theory was developed by a Catholic priest with a passionate   
   >>> interest in science but utterly faithful to his religious beliefs? Do   
   >>> you know that scientists, particularly Einstein, initially scorned his   
   >>> ideas but then realised that they actually stood up to scrutiny?   
   >>   
   >> You have a penchant to somehow read into other people's words meaning   
   >> that is simply not there.  I have no idea how you came up with your   
   >> conclusion on this interchangeability.   
   >   
   > You have used "materialist" right through your arguments with no   
   > reference to the scientists who came up with the various explanations   
   > and theories. What distinction do you make between materialist and a   
   > scientist and do you accept the validity of the work done by   
   > scientists?   
      
   A scientist can be a materialist, naturalist, atheist, theist, etc.   
   Those characteristics are irrelevant to me.  The validity of their   
   individual work has to be assessed the same way for all of them.  As far   
   as their results and subsequent interpretations, of course that will   
   differ among those looking at the work.  That's how it has always worked.   
      
   A materialist can be a scientist, a philosopher, a teacher, a writer, or   
   even just a common Joe.  What sets them apart is that they believe there   
   is nothing supernatural in play, has never been, and what you see is   
   what you get.   
      
      
   > If you're only rejecting materialists who insist that everything is   
   > ultimately due to natural causes and there's no room for the   
   > supernatural, then I have no argument with you as I too reject that   
   > type of materialism.   
      
   I wouldn't really say I reject them entirely, I just reject their   
   paradigm.  I am completely open to looking at their work.  I just might   
   come to different conclusions.   
      
      
   >>> Moving on from that, you state that what you describe as   
   >>> "materialists" have detailed explanations for starting with the Big   
   >>> Bang   
   >>   
   >> No I didn't, you just did.  To paraphrase myself, the materialist   
   >> believes the answer to origins started with the Big Bang with no help   
   >>from anything supernatural, and have succeeded in gaining consensus that   
   >> they are correct for a variety of reasons.   
   >>   
   >>> but then reject their explanations on the basis that they have no   
   >>> explanation for what *preceded* the Big Bang. That is a non sequitur;   
   >>> the fact that science doesn't have an explanation and probably never   
   >>> will have an explanation for what happened before the Big Bang has no   
   >>> bearing on their explanation for what happened after it which is based   
   >>> on the scientific evidence that has accumulated about what happened..   
   >>   
   >> Hogwash.  As above, I did not say I "reject their explanations"  In   
   >> fact, I specifically stated "I am not referring to either that (the Big   
   >> Bang) or inflation."   
   >   
   > What point are you trying to make then and what is the relevance of   
   > scientists not knowing what preceded or initially caused the Big Bang   
   > to the work they have done about what happened during and after the   
   > Big Bang?   
      
   Again, I specifically target ONLY the conditions before the event.  A   
   materialist absolutely has to say those things have always existed.  The   
   Laws of Science would tell you this is impossible, but in this case   
   materialists have to ignore those laws.  The honest answer of course   
   would be that they just don't know.  But they are unable to really say   
   that because then they ultimately have to answer why they can ignore the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)