From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 31/01/2026 9:56 pm, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 20:37:52 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 31/01/2026 1:50 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:   
   >>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 23:11:59 +1100   
   >>> MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 28/01/2026 10:21 pm, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 12:02:13 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 28/01/2026 3:40 am, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:54:52 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 21/01/2026 11:52 pm, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> [...]   
   >>>   
   >>> [snippage]   
   >>>   
   >>> [was Adam & Eve, could be any tale from the bible]   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>> Secondly, why would it matter if it's figurative rather than literal?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Those issues are signifcant, but here I'm not inclined to go down that   
   >>>>>> rabbit hole, e.g.:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You've used that get-out several times with me when I have questioned   
   >>>>> you on religious aspects of this debate. You give the impression that   
   >>>>> you are wildly enthusiastic about going down scientific rabbit holes   
   >>>>> but considerably less enthusiastic about going down religious ones. Do   
   >>>>> they frighten you?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> In my previous response (which you snipped), I said:   
   >>>   
   >>> [Snipping helps focus]   
   >>>   
   >>>> "In my experience, other contexts are more conducive to discussion of   
   >>>> science/theology questions, therefore here I generally focus on science   
   >>>> alone."   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The tone and substance of your comment here verifies the wisdom of my   
   >>>> approach.   
   >>>>   
   >>> So in this NG you wish only to attack science for not having a full   
   >>> explanation, yet you wish not to defend any religious views that,   
   >>> presumably, you have Absolute Faith in?   
   >>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69795f173f808191bd5a7c31300e16f5   
   >>>>>   
   >>> []   
   >>>   
   >>> Yet you (lazily, it seems to me) respond with an "AI" quote, not   
   >>> anything you've thought through for yourself. That isn't a great   
   >>> approach, IMO.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> I can appreciate how my general approach may cause frustration - freedom   
   >> to attack materialism with no reciprocal obligation to defend   
   >> supernaturalism (in my case, Christianity).   
   >>   
   >> On TO moist of us are attacking and defending most of the time (which I   
   >> weirdly "enjoy", and certainly value in order to test and sharpen ideas   
   >> and understanding).   
   >   
   > Do you not think that testing your religious beliefs might sharpen   
   > them too?   
      
   Possibly, but without sufficient cost-benefit would be my estimate from   
   experience.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >> However, as a creationist, I feel I'm regularly   
   >> defending my interpretation of science against greater numerical and   
   >> polemical opposition.   
   >   
   > As a religious believer,  I am regularly defending those beliefs   
   > against greater numerical and polemical opposition here but it has not   
   > undermined them in any way, it has in some ways sharpened them as you   
   > find with your interpretation of science.   
      
   My reticence is not from fear of my beliefs (i.e. core Christian   
   doctrines) being undermined.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> What's your perspective and why do you post here, if I may ask?   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)