From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/7/2026 3:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Fri, 6 Feb 2026 13:51:46 -0600, RonO  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2/6/2026 10:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >   
   > [...]   
   >   
   >>> In other words, you can't quote me because what you posted about me   
   >>> and the authors was a crock of shit. Nothing new there.   
   >>   
   >> No.  It just means that you know what you have already put up, and it   
   >> isn't worth looking for the junk.   
   >   
   > LOL, you've put up some flimsy excuses in the past, that mut be just   
   > about the most flimsy ever!   
      
   Do you deny putting up the adam and eve junk?   
      
   >   
   > […]   
   >   
   >>   
   >> It means that they are Biblical creationists, and they are selling the   
   >> junk to other Biblical creationists like Sticks.   
   >   
   > WOW, Biblical creationists who accept everything science has to say   
   > from the Big Bang to abiogenesis to evolution - weirdest Biblical   
   > creationists I ever met!   
      
   Like the ID perps they are basically scam artists if they do not tell   
   the rubes that the science does not support their Biblical beliefs.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> What science gaps are they putting up.   
   >   
   > None. Well maybe a wee bit about fine-tuning but I've already said   
   > that I think that is the weakest part of the book.   
      
   Big Bang, fine tuning, the flagellum looks designed.  How much evolution   
   is too much to occur without a creator?  You just put up their evolution   
   scenario, what do they claim about the creator for that?  The Top Six   
   gaps are just the best fool the rubes gap denial stupidity put up by the   
   ID perps.  Glenn kept putting up their second rate junk in order to run   
   in denial of what the Top Six meant.   
      
   "What science gaps are they putting up.  What is too complex to have   
   evolved and indicates some creator was involved?  It sounds like   
   standard IDiocy.  "This looks like it was designed by a creator" would   
   sum up their scientific descriptions."   
      
   This is what you ran from and removed without marking your snip.  Was   
   there some reason besides running that you did it?   
      
   >   
   >   
   > […]   
      
   Big SNIP.  I guess they are doing just what Meyer does.  No better than   
   the ID perps.   
      
   >   
   >> The church fathers were all Biblical   
   >> geocentrists,   
   >   
   > You reckon they *all* were yet you have never been able to identify   
   > even one.   
      
   Your geocentrism denial is just stupid at this time.  Grow up and face   
   reality.   
      
   Origen and Augustine are noted examples.  Just look it up.  They were   
   all considered to be geocentists.  It is the reason for the change made   
   by the Inquisition.  You know this but have to lie to yourself about it.   
     What does your inability to deal with the Bible being wrong about   
   geocentrism and the fact that the church fathers believed the Biblical   
   interpretation was valid mean to your current denial?   
      
   Nature is not Biblical.  If these authors do not tell the creationist   
   rubes like you this simple fact, they are no better than the ID perps.   
      
   >   
   > […]   
   >   
   >> So what does the limits of your knowledge have to do with what fraction   
   >> of Catholics are still geocentrists.  More than one blogger are   
   >> conservative enough Catholics to be geocentrists,   
   >   
   > Yet you cannot identify even one other than the three  that I   
   > mentioned.   
      
   This is just a stupid argument.  Why should my knowledge of geocentric   
   Catholics mean anything when it is widely agreed that all the church   
   fathers were geocentrists, and it is obvious that geocentric Catholics   
   still exist?  The Inquisition made heliocentrism into a formal heresy   
   because all the church fathers held the scriptural geocentric view point.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >   
   >> the anti geocentric Catholics verified all that   
   >> blogger's claims.   
   >   
   > Yet again, you cannot identify even one of these "anti-geocentric   
   > Catholics that verified the claims.   
      
   You got the links, and ran.  End of that story.  I even put up links   
   that they had to the original documents, and you ran.  You need to go   
   back and look at what you could never deal with.   
      
   >   
   > (I realise that this is getting tiresome but that is more a reflection   
   > of how much you repeat this crap rather than my pointing it out,)   
      
   Why keep lying about reality?  It is stupid and nothing will ever change   
   because you know what you could not deal with in the past.   
      
   >   
   > […]   
   >   
   >> You should have learned from their mistakes, but you never did.   
   >   
   > Yet again you offer at advice to others that you would be much better   
   > taking yourself.   
   >   
   You should learn from your past fiascos, but you never have.   
      
   You SNIPed this out and did not deal with it, so my guess is that you   
   can't face this reality either.   
      
   QUOTE:   
    > And there is no good reason not to identify when science and religion   
    > agree with each other, no matter how much it annoys you.   
      
   There is when the agreement isn't really an agreement.  Just take the   
   Big Bang.  What we understand about the Big Bang is that it is the   
   closest thing to a creation event that we have been able to understand   
   to a level of certainty that would classify it as some fact of nature.   
   The Big Bang has resulted in a non Biblical universe.  The universe that   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)