From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 2/12/2026 5:23 PM, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 2/12/26 12:33 PM, sticks wrote:   
   >> On 2/12/2026 12:38 PM, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> I'll see if they will answer an email and explain the source of   
   >>>>>> that sentence.  But I think since he used the same “more of the   
   >>>>>> same” in the last paragraph describing the Cambrian, it is meant   
   >>>>>> to depict their "common" response at these Cambrian announcements.   
   >>>>>> FWIW, it was unnecessary.  Should have just made their points and   
   >>>>>> left it at that.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> What points, exactly?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If you can't seem to recognize them when they made them, I doubt you   
   >>>> would if I did.   
   >>>   
   >>> I'm just asking for your opinion of what points they made. My opinion   
   >>> is that they made no points. Is it that hard?   
   >>   
   >> Not hard, just pointless.   
   >   
   > You have learned much from Martin Harran.   
      
   Though Martin spends time in some areas I find interesting, some are not   
   things I would rate all that important to MY interest in origins, and my   
   time on TO.  That said, I did find some of the conversation you've had   
   with him fair, until they seemed to take the usual course of   
   degradation.  The initial back and forth appeared cordial and not   
   intentionally or unfairly dismissive.  I respected that and would like   
   to see it more often here.   
      
   I posted the link to the Burgess Shale finding on the S&C site because I   
   remembered seeing it noted here earlier, and thought the short read   
   might be of interest to both creationists and evolutionists.   
   Creationists get much more insight into materialism than the other way   
   around, but I would think it is of value to the evolutionist to know   
   what the reasons for the creationist arguments are.   
      
   It is a short read, and obviously a thoughtful person like you could   
   understand their position and the points they were making. However,   
   instead of responding to them you chose to first ridicule them with "S&C   
   is a mindless creationist site", and then question a rather irrelevant   
   issue about "who are the "some evolutionists" who greeted the new site   
   with "consternation"?"   
      
   That is a fair question, and I did attempt to find an answer to it, as I   
   found it odd, too.  But their points were easily understood, and you   
   choose not to address them, instead claiming "they made no points."   
      
   All I will tell is is I can understand their points, and yes, I agree   
   with them.  There simply is no need for me to spend time in discussing   
   them here, as that would be pointless.  I would suggest you make a case   
   on why they are wrong and perhaps that might change.  Unfortunately, you   
   don't think they made any points.   
      
      
   --   
   Science Doesn’t Support Darwin. Scientists Do   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)