From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 2/3/2026 2:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 16:59:19 -0600, sticks    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2/2/2026 6:11 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 16:15:19 -0600, sticks    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> [...]   
   >>>   
   >>>> I believe Martin didn't like the fine-tuning section, which I thought   
   >>>> was excellently done, and the OoL section lays out what we know with the   
   >>>> impossible chances of it happening in a very easily readable manner.   
   >>>> Again, they use the words of mostly secular scientists to further make   
   >>>> their point.  It is very effective.   
   >>>   
   >>> Please explain to me why you think all that fine tuning had to be   
   >>> predetermined so that a particular kind of life could develop rather   
   >>> than that a form developing to match the conditions that existed?   
   >>   
   >> You have been complaining lately that people are either misquoting you   
   >> or accusing them of simply misstating what you believe.  I am puzzled   
   >> then that you have no problem doing exactly that to me.  Please don't.   
   >   
   > When someone misrepresents me, I clarify what I wrote or thought to   
   > show how they are wrong. Can you please do the same here as I wouldn't   
   > want to misrepresent anyone?   
      
   You could start by acknowledging your question above about what I think   
   is something you have completely made up.  I have no idea why, but   
   assume it is because it is a topic you would like to discuss.  It simply   
   is missing from anything I have said or what the book attempts to do.   
   Being someone who has actually read the book, I would think you surely   
   know this.   
      
      
   --   
   Science Doesn’t Support Darwin. Scientists Do   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)