From: eastside.erik@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/13/25 2:57 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:   
   > On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 15:24:16 -0600, sticks    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 11/13/2025 1:11 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:   
   >>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 12:08:54 -0600, sticks    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 11/13/2025 7:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 17:38:56 -0600, sticks    
   >>>>> wrote:   
   >>>    
   >>>>>> But, that appears to be changing, and   
   >>>>>> rather quickly it seems.  But, I suppose that's just a personal opinion.   
   >>>>>>     It is always going to be a problem for creationists in our "modern"   
   >>>>>> culture trying to convince anyone that there is a supernatural anything.   
   >>>>>>     It's just the world we live in.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You won't convince anyone by trying to attack science that is well   
   >>>>> established and based on evidence. I don't even know why you would   
   >>>>> want to do that;   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I don't do that.  You say I do because you have different views than I   
   >>>> do.  Are you literally suggesting everyone should simply accept what is   
   >>>> consensus and stop further inquiry?  Good thing actual scientists don't   
   >>>> do that!   
   >>>   
   >>> So are scientists irrationally in support of  Darwin, per your sig, or   
   >>> are they rationally seeking out truth in science?  Both can't be   
   >>> right, can they?   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> You're asking me to define their motivation.   
   >   
   > No,  I was asking if these two statements of yours are in conflict   
   > with each other:   
   >   
   > "Are you literally suggesting everyone should simply accept what is   
   > consensus and stop further inquiry?  Good thing actual scientists   
   > don't do that!"   
   >   
   > and   
   >   
   > "Science doesn't support Darwin.  Scientists do."   
   >   
   > So scientists support Darwin without evidence, and simultaneously   
   > don't stop inquiry at consensus?   
   >   
   >> Each individual has to   
   >> make his own judgment as to whether or not Darwin's theory works and if   
   >> they wish to support it.  I can think of several reasons off the top of   
   >> my head, so it would be pointless to define them as a group, other than   
   >> supporting Darwin.  They just do.   
   >   
   > No,  people shouldn't base their acceptance of a scientific theory on   
   > whether they "wish" to support it.  Rather they should base it on how   
   > well it fits the data.   
   >   
   Sticks seems to believe that God (his God, anyway) does things on a   
   whim, so there's really no point in studying anything or believing   
   anything, because God could change his mind anytime. I think that's a   
   good reason to stop listening to this troll.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)