Re: To sum up

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 19:15:29 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 9/02/2025 12:02 am, Martin Harran wrote:

On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:03:57 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 8/02/2025 9:39 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 17:29:54 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Has talk.origins run its course, with this incarnation (post-GG
meteorite impact) the last of the dinosaurs?
>
And what of the Origins debate? My contention is that progressive
discoveries with the complexity and precision of life are making Mt
Improbable higher and higher [1]. ID has gained and sustained traction
because this trend is real.

>
What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
>
[...]

>
So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.
>

>
No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.

 
You choosing to moan about my "cheap shot", rather than demolishing my
point by offering some evidence, speaks volumes.

>
Okay, I'm happy to do a reset, and accept some blame here.

For clarification - are you now dropping your claim that ID has gained
and sustained traction?

>
I am interested in reviewing the state of ID. I'm somewhat ambivalent
about ID myself actually, though I think it does have merit. I'll start
a new post to give the invitation visibility (i.e. paint a target on
myself).
>

 
 

>
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.
>