Re: To sum up

On 15/02/2025 8:19 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 22:24:38 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 9/02/2025 8:52 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

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?

>
No, the review will be my case for ID's traction, but also highlighting
shortcomings that I'm aware of.
>
I plan to address it in a separate topic. I'm snowed under with a
weekend, so it may be a day or two.

 It's now been a week since you said you would do this and you have
posted 9 messages in the last couple of days so your busy at work
excuse is wearing a bit thin. I've seen nothing to change my original
conclusion that this claim about ID gaining traction is just something
that you would *like* to be true but it isn't.

I continue the midnight sessions (budgets and board papers etc), but take a break with simple responses here.
I want to give a reflection on ID ample time and head space. Patience. But I appreciate your enthusiasm.

 

>

>

>
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.
>

>

>