From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   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?   
      
      
   >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.   
      
   >   
   >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)