From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 27/02/2026 5:17 am, DB Cates wrote:   
   > 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'?   
      
   I'm sorry John, I'm afraid I can't do that.   
      
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> 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?   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)