From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/11/2025 5:38 PM, sticks wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   This is actually a lie.  Natural selection has been demonstrated to be a   
   fact of nature, and that is basically all that Darwin added to   
   evolutionary notions.  He just came up with one of the known mechanisms   
   for producing the diversity of life on earth.  Darwin's grandfather is   
   known to have advocated the evolution of life on earth.  What Darwin   
   proposed was a means of evolving the diversity of life that we currently   
   observe, and he turned out to be correct, and science consistently   
   vindicates his hypothesis.   
      
   What creationists are lying about when they put up such nonsense is the   
   notion that natural mechanisms of evolution are all that there ever was   
   or is.  Darwin never held such beliefs, and he understood that natural   
   selection was likely only one way that life could be changed by descent   
   with modification.   
      
   As has been noted in this thread the notion that life has evolved on   
   this planet solely by natural means has never been part of the   
   scientific theory of biological evolution.  It wasn't initiated by   
   Darwin, and never became part of the scientific theory.  The scientific   
   theory of biological evolution only consists of what we have been able   
   to determine about it.  It does not include things that have not been   
   scientifically demonstrated to be so.   
      
   You keep talking about strawmen, and this is one of the creationist   
   strawmen.  Atheists may incorrectly add solely by natural means into   
   their notion of the theory, but science has not done so.  The NCSE (an   
   organization that formed to basically combat the attempt to teach   
   creationism in the public schools began with that incorrect addition to   
   the theory of biological evolution, and they had to admit that they were   
   wrong and change their views very early in their existence.  They no   
   longer claim that evolution had to occur solely by natural means.   
      
   Ron Okimoto>   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)