From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 3/18/2025 12:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 08:41:05 -0500, RonO    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 3/18/2025 3:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>> rOn Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:42:09 -0500, RonO    
   >>> wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > [Mercy snip]   
   >>>> What does this matter?  You were still lying.  They aren't literally   
   >>>> denying natural mechanisms   
   >>>   
   >>> So you have kept insisting that they deny that natural mechanisms were   
   >>> involved in evolution. Now you admit that they don't say that but you   
   >>> claim that I am the one who is lying. It's perfectly clear that I have   
   >>> been right all along, the claims you have been making about them are   
   >>> all the products of your bullshit interpretation.   
   >>   
   >> I have never denied that, what I have always contended is that they deny   
   >> that it was all natural.   
   >   
   > Let's get this perfectly clear, do you now agree that the stuff you   
   > are claiming about them is not what they actually say, it is what   
   > think is the consequence of what they say?   
      
   Let's get this perfectly clear, you have lied about what I have claimed   
   from the beginning.  They are Biblical literalists that claim that their   
   god made man in his own image.  I have always claimed that they are   
   theistic evolutionists.  Their own claims make them tweekers like Behe.   
   They claim that their god is using miracles and is actively involved in   
   the creation, and still is actively involved today.  It isn't the   
   consequence of what they claim, it is what they claim.   
      
   Why try to lie about "consequences" of what they claim?  It is literally   
   what they are claiming.  You ran from the quotes, and now you are just   
   lying about them again.   
      
   >   
   >> My example has always been Behe as a tweeker,   
   >> and you know that for a fact.   
   >   
   > You keep insisting that there is no difference between them and Behe.   
   > He, however, gave three specific examples of what he regards as   
   > tweaking - the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting cascade and the   
   > immune system.[1]  You have not been able to give even one example of   
   > anything that Biologos regards as tweaking, all you can do is try to   
   > change the goalposts by waving your hands about unspecified miracles   
   > which are something completely outside of science, nothing to do with   
   > denying science. For example, what *science* is contradicted or denied   
   > by the belief in the supernatural Resurrection of Christ?   
      
   I have always said that some of them are tweekers like Behe because of   
   what I quoted them as claiming.  They are more honest about it than   
   Behe, in that they admit that they believe supernatural miracles were   
   involved.  "Supernatural" was their claim making them just as much a   
   denier of natural processes as Behe.  Supernatural miracles are not   
   natural by definition.  "Puffs of smoke" is all that Behe has claimed   
   about the unnatural designer did it mechanisms that he claims for his   
   designer tweeking.   
      
      
   >   
   > [1] Even in regard to Behe's three specific claims, I have already   
   > given you a link to an article on the Biologos site that dismantles   
   > those claims and shows they don't stand up to scrutiny. Here it is   
   > again in case you missed it:   
   >   
   > https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-can-evolution-accoun   
   -for-the-complexity-of-life-on-earth-today   
      
   It doesn't matter.  Everyone should know how bogus Behe's claims are by   
   now.  He never could demonstrate that his type of IC systems exist in   
   nature.  That doesn't mean that he was not a tweeker, and that these   
   guys are also not tweekers.  They just understand that Behe's method of   
   detecting miracles doesn't work.   
      
      
   >   
   >   
   >> They are obviously claiming devine   
   >> intervention.  Supernatural miracles are not natural mechanisms.  You   
   >> have been deluding yourself and lying about what was claimed.  You know   
   >> why you ran from the requoted material the first time and started lying.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> You really need to get a grip on yourself; your paranoid fear of   
   >>> religious belief is on a par with the IDers' paranoid fear of science.   
   >>   
   >> You need stop lying about the situation when you know that you were   
   >> wrong from the beginning of your denial of what I was claiming.  What do   
   >> you think evolutionary creationism is?  They accept biological evolution   
   >> a means of creation, but they are obviously tweekers like Behe, and deny   
   >> that it was all natural just like Behe.  Making stupid claims that I was   
   >> claiming that they denied natural mechanisms for evolution is just   
   >> stupid   
   >   
   > Here are your exact words that started this debate:   
   >   
   > "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.  That is exactly   
   > what Saint Augustine warned against doing."   
      
   Tweekers.  Behe acknowledges that biological evolution is a fact of   
   nature, but still tries to force biological evolution into his biblical   
   interpretation.  These guys understand that biological evolution is a   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)