From: admin@127.0.0.1   
      
   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).   
      
   Having a faith doesn't have to (indeed shouldn't) prevent you   
   questioning it.   
      
   >   
   > 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). However, as a creationist, I feel I'm regularly   
   > defending my interpretation of science against greater numerical and   
   > polemical opposition.   
      
   The reason, I imagine, for polecism is your refusal to look at science   
   and the conclusions it gives to many of your bible-based "facts"   
   that are easily shown to be wrong.   
      
   >   
   > What's your perspective and why do you post here, if I may ask?   
   >   
      
   I came to see what recent advances there had been on how life began.   
   'Goddidit' isn't a satisfactory answer.   
      
   --   
   Bah, and indeed Humbug.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)