[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> tweeking?  They likely even differ in what they think image means.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-can-evolution-acc   
   unt-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,   
   >>>>>>> including human beings in his own image.".  You have to read their web   
   >>>>>>> site to learn that some of them are tweekers that claim that their god   
   >>>>>>> was involved in guiding the evolution of life on earth.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I have read their web site and I see nothing anywhere about forcing   
   >>>>>> biological evolution into conforming with their   
   >>>>>> Biblical interpretation. Feel free to point it out if I have missed   
   >>>>>> it.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You must have missed the part about tweekers,   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It's a big site and I can't find anything about tweekers. Please quote   
   >>>> what they actually say or at least point me to the actual part of the   
   >>>> site where they say it.   
   >>>   
   >>>  From the link that I originally put up:   
   >>>   
   >>> https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-is-biologos-differ   
   nt-from-evolutionism-intelligent-design-and-creationism   
   >>>   
   >>> QUOTE:   
   >>> BioLogos believes that science is limited to explaining the natural   
   >>> world, and that supernatural events like miracles are part of reality too.   
   >>> END QUOTE:   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-is-evolutionary-creation   
   >>>   
   >>> This comes after the quote about evolutionary creationism that I   
   >>> originally put up.   
   >>>   
   >>> QUOTE:   
   >>> We believe that God acts purposefully in creation, just as he does in   
   >>> our lives, and that he continues to actively uphold and sustain creation.   
   >>> END QUOTE:   
   >>>   
   >>> Tweekers acting purposefully in creation that they include life as part   
   >>> of the creation.  The reason to believe exIDiots also believe that their   
   >>> god is still working on the creation.   
   >>>   
   >>> Ron Okimoto   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> and the claims that their   
   >>>>> god evolved humans in his own image.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> How does that contradict science?   
   >>>   
   >>> They do not have to contradict science, just make the same claims about   
   >>> limits of natural processes that Behe does about the flagellum.  Like   
   >>> these guys Behe understands that evolution is a fact of nature, but that   
   >>> doesn't stop him from his science denial attempts.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> You claimed that they trying to force biological evolution into   
   >> conforming with their Biblical interpretation but can't produce a   
   >> single example of that.   
   >   
   >Why lie about something like that when you can just go up this post and   
   >see the examples quoted out of the original links that I put up?   
   >Wanting to live in denial is no excuse for lying.  Made in his own image   
   >is a Biblical interpretation, and they claim that biological evolution   
   >was used to do that.  It is no different from Behe claiming that his god   
   >was responsible for creating the flagellum in an evolutionary context.   
   >There is no evidence that some god used evolution to do any such thing.   
   >They have no other means than Beheian science denial to support any god   
   >involvement in the evolution of humans in any specific way.  There is no   
   >scientific evidence that humans evolved to be what they are due to the   
   >influence of some god.  If they believe that there is, they are in the   
   >same category of science denial as Behe.  What do the other quotes tell   
   >you about their adherence with literal Biblical interpretations.  Behe   
   >lies about why he puts up his denial, but these guys say straight out   
   >that they believe what they believe because the Bible tells them so.   
      
   You still can't give even a single example of the things you have   
   accused them of. QED   
      
      
   >   
   >Ron Okimoto   
   >   
   >>   
   >> You claimed that in their core values, they deny that natural   
   >> mechanisms were ninvolved in evolution. They don't.   
   >>   
   >> You claimed that their site supports "tweekers" but you can't say   
   >> where.   
   >>   
   >> You even try to argue that their views on things that are not   
   >> "established findings of modern science" are somehow a rejection of   
   >> science.   
   >>   
   >> You have absolutely nothing to support your attacks on Biologos except   
   >> your own febrile imagination, driven by your phobia that all   
   >> "creationists" are the same, that there is no real difference between   
   >> Southern Evangelicals and  Catholics and Anglicans and other   
   >> mainstream religions, that they all reject science.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Ron Okimoto   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> That is exactly what Saint   
   >>>>>>>>> Augustine warned against doing.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> This is just the next stage of science denial that some of them will   
   use   
   >>>>>>>>> their acceptance of some of the science to cover up.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> That is pure conjecture on your part.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> It is what some of them are already doing.  Some have given up on the   
   >>>>>>> science denial, but some are still looking for what they need to fit   
   >>>>>>> their god into what has happened in nature.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> If they had given up on the science denial that Saint Ausgustine warned   
   >>>>>>> Christians about, it would not matter how biological evolution fit into   
   >>>>>>> their literal interpretation of the Bible.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Funny how you can't give even one specific example of such denial.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Some of them   
   >>>>>>>>> likely have deistic notions like Denton, and do not require any   
   designer   
   >>>>>>>>> interference with evolution, but some of them are tweekers like Behe,   
   >>>>>>>>> and still remain under Saint Augustine's admonishment.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> More conjecture on your part. Unless of course you can provide   
   >>>>>>>> specific examples.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> They admit to it on their web site.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Where on their web site do they admit it?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Some of them are still tweekers   
   >>>>>>> like Behe, and would be the same type of science denier as Behe is.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Yet again, you can't give a single specific example.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> In order to abide by Saint Augustine's admonishment they wouldn't need   
   to   
   >>>>>>> limit biological evolution due to their Biblical beliefs.  They claim   
   >>>>>>> that their god made humans in his own image using biological   
   evolution..   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> You do understand that there is a theological debate about what "in his   
   >>>>>>> image" means, right?  So what literal belief are they supporting and   
   >>>>>>> should they even be trying to support any of the interpretations?    
   Which   
   >>>>>>> Biblical beliefs are they willing to falsify using science?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The reason you can't give any specific examples is that you are   
   >>>>>> presenting their case upside down. They are not trying to *force* any   
   >>>>>> science into anything; to the extent that they are *forcing* anything,   
   >>>>>> they are forcing their traditional Bible interpretation into   
   >>>>>> accommodating what science tells us.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> St Augustine would undoubtedly have heartily endorsed what they are   
   >>>>>> doing.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Ron Okimoto   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> These creationists are claiming that some of the existing science is   
   >>>>>>>>> consistent with their Biblical interpretation, but it is not   
   consistent   
   >>>>>>>>> with what other creationists believe.  If we rewrote the Bible today   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)