From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Sat, 15 Nov 2025 10:09:47 -0600, RonO    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.     
      
      
   All of the threads where Sticks contributed conflate philosophical   
   principles and scientific theories wrt origins.  That's what he does.   
   He argues origins presuming an uncaused cause, a philosophical POV,   
   while scientific theories make no such presumptions.     
      
      
   > You were the one doing that in that case.   
      
      
   That's is a mindlessly defensive retort.  You would know this if you   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)