[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>> 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-ac   
   ount-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-diffe   
   ent-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   
      
   Why do you insist on continuing to lie.  The examples were given and are   
   still in this post.  I took the quotes right out of the links that I   
   gave to start this thread.   
      
   They claim to believe that evolution was used by their god to create   
   humans in their god's image.  That is a specific Biblical literalist   
   claim.  They claim to be Biblical literalists that believe that miracles   
   apply in the past and present.  I do not know how you can stick with   
   your denial when these guys are as bad as Behe in their claims of their   
   god doing something.  Not just making specific claims like creating   
   humans in their god's image, but claiming supernatural miracles in order   
   to do it.  Even Behe doesn't claim supernatural miracles, he just claims   
   that he doesn't know how design was done.  There is no scientific   
   evidence for their literalist belief.  These guys have set themselves up   
   to continue the ID perp's denial about human evolution.  They are going   
   to be stuck with the same science denial that the ID perps have been   
   using against biological evolution doing what it obviously has done   
   during the evolution of humans from the last single celled common   
   ancestor of extant life on this planet.  That really is the only way   
   that they have to demonstrate that their god was needed.  They want   
   their god to have been involved in the process, but they do not have any   
   positive evidence for such a claim.  They are going to be looking for   
   the same impossible evolution that Behe has always claimed exists.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >>>>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)