From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:44:15 -0600, RonO    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 11/14/2025 4:58 AM, jillery wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 16:44:19 -0600, sticks    
   >> wrote:   
   >>    
   >>> On 11/12/2025 10:20 AM, RonO wrote:   
   >>>> On 11/11/2025 5:38 PM, sticks wrote:   
   >>>>> On 11/10/2025 7:48 AM, Martin Harran 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.  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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Everyone acknowledges micro evolution.  I am unaware of anything   
   >>> vindicating his natural selection mechanism being able to create another   
   >>> anything.  From a new limb, wings, anything, but especially a new family   
   >>> of animals.  Of course there are changes from gene mutation copying   
   >>> errors, but most all are harmful.  But as far as I'm aware there is   
   >>> absolutely no proof of macro evolution where one form turns into   
   >>> another.  I have no problem with people who believe natural selection   
   >>> has the type of powers the evolutionist claims.  I'm sure they will put   
   >>> out their evidence when they get it.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Yes, he kept inserting references to his deistic Darwinism in every   
   >>> edition as a means of preempting his opponents.  I believe he had many   
   >>> doubts of his theory, with good reason.  But in the end he held onto   
   >>> materialistic thinking.   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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 might feel what you say to be true, but it is quite evident that the   
   >>> entire consensus today in the evolution crowd is everything happened   
   >>> with only natural means.  I don't see how you can say otherwise to be   
   >>> honest.   
   >>    
   >>    
   >> Sticks, RonO, and Harran are all here conflating philosophical   
   >> principles with consensus scientific theories.  The latter necessarily   
   >> seek to explain observed material evidence, but in no way restrict all   
   >> possible explanations to those scientific theories.  That's a   
   >> difference ignored in conversations with posters like sticks who   
   >> obsessively focus on origins.   
   >>    
   >   
   >You wanted to include solely by natural means as a philosophical    
   >principle.  I did not.  I just stated the fact that it is not and never    
   >has been part of the scientific theory of biological evolution.  That is    
   >fact, not a philosophical principle.  It is due the scientific notion    
   >that we should stick to what we can determine to exist, and not include    
   >things that we can't support.   
      
      
   I presume your first sentence above refers to a previous but recent   
   thread between you and I.  Scientific theories are necessarily based   
   on natural phenomena.  That does *not* mean scientific theories are   
   the only possible explanations.  It *does* mean that theories based on   
   supernatural phenomena are not scientific.  That's the difference   
   Sticks here doesn't recognize.   
      
   A philosophical problem arguments like Sticks presents here is, they   
   *assume* their initial uncaused cause is supernatural, but refuse to   
   consider an initial natural uncaused cause.  IOW they change the rules   
   depending on whose cause they're talking about; a juvenile word game.   
      
   OTOH scientists recognize that an uncaused cause logically doesn't   
   explain anything.  They recognize that *all* origin narratives   
   *necessarily* begin with an *unknown* cause.  Unknown does not mean   
   supernatural or natural.  It just means it's not known at this time.     
      
   --    
   To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)