Re: To sum up

Bob Casanova wrote:

On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:25:11 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
 

On 12/02/2025 4:58 am, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 14:26:34 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
>

On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:03:57 +1100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
>

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

Martin can handle his own arguments, but I noticed that you
again failed to provide the evidence for your claim that ID
has gained traction. I'd also be interested in such
evidence, since it contradicts my own observations.

>

3 days; no evidence. Thanks for confirming.

>

>
Work taking all my time at the moment. Be patient.
>

Sorry; heard that quite a few times before, from several
others. Patience exhausted long ago.

>

In approximately 1990 my local paper had a story entitled "News the press establishment is ignoring".
High on their list was "The continuing rapid acceptance of Scientific Creationism in the Scientific Community".
Of course, the first time I debated any creationist, circa 1975, I was
assured that scientists were coming around  to the creationist view, and that evolution would be rejected soon.  Therefore, the fact that he could not remotely defend his cause didn't matter. See?
But then, since his god was going to come back soon, circa 35 AD, perhaps he meant that evolution would be rejected around 4000 AD.
MarkE is in the grand tradition.
William Hyde