From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 11/13/2025 7:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 17:38:56 -0600, sticks    
   > wrote:   
      
   ---snip---   
      
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > You have not made any claim to be a scientist, so I am assuming you're   
   > not. That means you think that *you*, a non-scientist, understand   
   > science better than scientists which is what I said above. Unless, of   
   > course, you want to claim that you can draw reliable conclusions about   
   > something without understanding it.   
      
   What a ridiculous thing to say.  Only a "scientist" can understand what   
   their papers mean.   
      
   >> But are   
   >> you really saying you have not heard this before?   
   >   
   > Of course I have heard it before albeit expressed in slightly   
   > different ways but no one who has claimed it has been able to show me   
   > any reason for it to be valid.   
      
   I'd suggest you take your own advice and broaden your reading.  No, I   
   wouldn't, it just amused me saying it.   
      
   ---snip---   
      
   > The problem is that you are not just rejecting materialism, you are   
   > rejecting science generally as reflected in your sig. Why refer to   
   > *scientists* in your sig and then keep talking about materialists   
   > unless you conflate the two?   
      
   I can't help you with your problem of conflating a sig file and then   
   discussions separate from one.  I will have one last word on this stupid   
   sig file issue you have, and then I'm done with it.  YOU make all these   
   connections yourself.  I have stated several times I do not reject   
   science.  The sig file does not say every damn scientist in the world   
   supports Darwin.  It says scientists are the ones who do.  Would you   
   have me exclude every scientist who doesn't?   
      
   In essence the sig file says that I don't believe the evidence supports   
   Darwinian evolution, only the words of people, some of whom are   
   scientists does.  Disagree with it all you want.  I'm done talking about   
   it.  It's a waste of time.   
      
   ---snip---   
      
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > I'm struggling to understand what your real point is here. This   
   > discussion started with your sig about Darwin and now you claim you   
   > want to just about the Big Bang and what preceded it. What has the Big   
   > Bang to do with Darwin?   
      
   You mean other than the fact you keep asking about it?  Here's where it   
   started   
      
   Message-ID: <10egogi$pb0s$1@dont-email.me>   
      
   >> 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.   
   -------   
      
   It was clearly meant to give an example of why I feel the way I do and   
   that I have actually thought about it, which you insinuated I hadn't   
   done.  There are many spots this type of inquiry can be done in the   
   geological timeline, I chose the start of origins since it is the   
   hardest to get past if you are going to remove the supernatural from   
   everything and accept Darwinian logic.   
      
   > [snip for focus]   
   >   
   >>>   
   >>> I'm assuming that like myself, you believe in God someone with whom we   
   >>> can have a personal relationship. How do you get from someone tweaking   
   >>> with atoms and particles to that type of God, the one shown in the   
   >>> Bible, how does it improve your understanding of God?   
   >>>   
   >>> I have posed this question to several religious believers who support   
   >>> ID and reject the Theory of Evolution; none of them have made any   
   >>> attempt to answer, hopefully you might.   
   >>   
   >> Before I could answer a question like that I would have to know exactly   
   >> what you mean by "tweaking atoms and particles."  I have a feeling it is   
   >> going to mean things we might not agree with about what is accepted or   
   >> consensus.  Explain further if you wish.   
   >   
   > You have been focusing on the Big Bang which is where atoms and   
   > particles came into existence and claiming that it was caused by God;   
   > that is an example of what I mean by tweaking with atoms and   
   > particles. I struggle to find any relationship between God involved in   
   > that sort of activity and the loving father in heaven that I believe   
   > in, who sent his Son to redeem us.   
      
   That's why the question has always had a HOW and a WHY.   
      
   >>> I gave you several examples of wholly committed religious believers   
   >>> who fully accept what science has to say both in regard to cosmology   
   >>> and to the TOE and have indeed made significant direct contributions   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)