From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 10:02:21 -0500, RonO    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 3/13/2025 8:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 11:43:35 -0500, RonO    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 3/12/2025 8:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 13:06:43 -0500, RonO    
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 3/11/2025 12:21 PM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 09:21:24 -0500, RonO    
   >>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 3/11/2025 5:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 17:20:56 -0500, RonO    
   >>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> [...]   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> They are still not abiding by   
   >>>>>>>>> Saint Augustine's admonishment about not using the Bible to make   
   claims   
   >>>>>>>>> about what we can determine for ourselves about nature, so my guess   
   is   
   >>>>>>>>> that their efforts can still fail to represent nature accurately   
   >>>>>>>>> depending on how consistent with the Bible that they want to be.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> They are NOT in any way contradicting Saint Augustine's admonishment,   
   >>>>>>>> they are following it perfectly.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> If you think differently then like MarkE, you haven't properly grasped   
   >>>>>>>> the meaning of what St Augustine meant.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> They are trying to force biological evolution into conforming with   
   their   
   >>>>>>> Biblical interpretation.  As such what are they missing about   
   biological   
   >>>>>>> evolution?  Some of them are denying that natural mechanisms were   
   >>>>>>> involved in some of that evolution.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Please give an example of that.   
   >>>> ?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You SNIPed it out.   
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> There is nothing in what I snipped that shows anyone denying that   
   >>>> natural mechanisms were involved in evolution. On the contrary, as   
   >>>> quoted by you from their website, they define one of their core values   
   >>>> as affirming the established findings of modern science. Are you   
   >>>> calling them liars?   
   >>>   
   >>> That obviously is not true.  Did you actually read what you snipped out?   
   >>>   What were their other core values?   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Here is exactly what you posted from their site earlier::   
   >>   
   >> ====================================   
   >>   
   >> QUOTE:   
   >> Evolutionary Creation (EC) is a Christian position on origins. It   
   >> takes   
   >> the Bible seriously as the inspired and authoritative word of God, and   
   >> it takes science seriously as a way of understanding the world God has   
   >> made. EC includes two basic ideas. First, that God created all things,   
   >> including human beings in his own image. Second, that evolution is the   
   >> best scientific explanation we currently have for the diversity and   
   >> similarities of all life on Earth.   
   >> END QUOTE:   
   >>   
   >> QUOTE:   
   >> The Identity of BioLogos   
   >> Core Values   
   >> Christ-centered Faith - We embrace the historical Christian faith,   
   >> upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible.   
   >>   
   >> Rigorous Science - We affirm the established findings of modern   
   >> science,   
   >> celebrating the wonders of God's creation.   
   >>   
   >> Gracious Dialogue - We strive for humble and thoughtful dialogue with   
   >> those who hold other views, speaking the truth in love.   
   >> END QUOTE:   
   >>   
   >> ===============================================   
   >>   
   >> Where in that are they are denying that natural mechanisms were   
   >> involved in some of that evolution?   
   >   
   >They are like Behe and claiming that their god is needed to do a   
   >specific thing that they claim the Bible tells them so.   
   >   
   >What do you not get?  The reasoning is no different from Behe claiming   
   >that some god is needed to create the flagellum.   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> They obviously have other feelings   
   >>> about what are not "established findings of modern science."   
   >>   
   >> So what does it matter what they think about things outside of   
   >> science, how is that contradicting science?   
   >   
   >They are claiming that their understanding of science can be made to   
   >conform to their literal interpretations of the Bible.  It is the same   
   >claim that the ID perps make except they agree that biological evolution   
   >is a fact of nature.  Some of them still think like Behe.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> Not only   
   >>> that, but as I indicated there are somethings about evolution that have   
   >>> not been established because they claim to be tweekers like Behe, and   
   >>> their god has been tweeking things in order to make humans into his own   
   >>> image.   
   >>   
   >> I'm still waiting for an example of those tweekers. And why do you   
   >> keep bringing Behe into it? He has nothing to do with Biologos or they   
   >> with him. They actually have a lengthy article about his "Darwin's   
   >> Black Box" book where they go through his arguments one by one and   
   >> show how they don't stand up.   
   >   
   >How do you expect god to have made man in his own image without   
   >tweeking?  They likely even differ in what they think image means.   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >> https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-can-evolution-accou   
   t-for-the-complexity-of-life-on-earth-today   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> The example was in their description of what they   
   >>>>> believed.  They believe that the Bible is the "inspired and   
   >>>>> authroitative word of God" and "First, that God created all things,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)