From: cates_db@hotmail.com   
      
   On 2026-02-26 5:48 a.m., Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:   
   > On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 18:17:56 +1100   
   > MarkE  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 26/02/2026 8:47 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:   
   >>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:33:16 +1100   
   >>> MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 25/02/2026 6:05 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:   
   > [left some out]   
   >>>> As I've asked Vincent: Reality is either theism or not ("not" being   
   >>>> materialism, atheism, deism, pantheism etc). You seem to reject theism   
   >>>> as a *possibility* - why is that?   
   >>>   
   >>> Last go; religion and science are asking different questions; it's no good   
   >>> looking for evidence for a god, failing to find it, but still wanting a gap   
   >>> to be the bit where god gets involved.   
   >>   
   >> Are you suggesting that creationists generally "look for evidence for a   
   >> god, fail to find it, but still want a gap to be the bit where god gets   
   >> involved", and so ignore/deny/misinterpret the evidence?   
   >>   
   >> Genuine question, intended to clarify and/or move us past a simplistic   
   >> characterisation.   
   >>   
   > What's your take on the desperate attempts by creationists to find   
   > anything in science that's not fully worked out yet to support them?   
   >>   
   >>> As I said before, if you find that having a god gives you some   
   >>> comfort, then it works for you. Just don't expect it to manifest itself   
   >>> any time soon.   
   >>   
   >> Are you suggesting that creationists' belief is generally the result of   
   >> a psychological need to "have a god [to give them] some comfort", that   
   >> this is a character weakness, and one which creates a bias that takes   
   >> away objectivity when considering scientific evidence?   
   >>   
   >> Again, a genuine question, intended to clarify and/or move us past a   
   >> simplistic characterisation.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   > Sounds like you are channeling Liza now!   
      
   Perhaps 'ELIZA'?   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Do you have a non-evolutionary explanation for why god designed the   
   >>>>> laryngeal nerve that way?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>> I see you want a god to do some things, but not be responsible for others.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Could there be other reasons why I have not yet responded to your question?   
   >>   
   > I dunno, maybe because you don't want to look at it? Do you often   
   > respond to a question with a question? Maybe you don't make clear any   
   > misgivings you may (or may not) have about creationism?   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   --   
   Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)