From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/15/2025 3:01 AM, jillery wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   There never was any conflating philosophical principles with consensus   
   scientific theories on my part.  You were the one doing that in that case.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   >   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)