[continued from previous message]   
      
   fact of nature, but they believe in supernatural miracles to get us   
   where we are today.  They are just more honest about supernatural   
   miracles than Behe.   
      
   >   
   > Feel free to explain how it is stupid of me to say you claimed they   
   > denied natural mechanisms for evolution.   
      
   The need for supernatural miracles is direct denial of natural   
   mechanisms being responsible for the observed evolution.  You should   
   understand that due to the definition of supernatural miracles.   
      
   >   
   > Note: You did originally say "some of them" but I asked you to provide   
   > examples and you couldn't which meant your claim had to be taken as a   
   > general one and you went on anyway to talk about 'they' and 'them' in   
   > general terms (an example follows immediately below).   
      
   It likely isn't all of them because they range from evangelical biblical   
   literalists to likely pretty liberal theistic evolutionists, and the   
   extent of what miracles were needed is likely debated among them just as   
   it is among the ID perps and Reason to Believe exIDiots.  The Reason to   
   Believe exIDiots claim that their designer only made it look like   
   biological evolution happened and is still happening by "recreating" new   
   species just a little different from the previously existing species.   
   It is so much like evolution that the new recreation can even interbreed   
   sometimes with the previously existing species.  None of the Biologos   
   evolutionary creationists are likely that badly off, but they still   
   claim that supernatural miracles were needed.   
      
   Just admit that you have been lying, and quit lying.  You understood   
   that you were lying when you ran from the quotes and started to lie, and   
   nothing has changed.  The quotes are what they are.  Just go up the   
   thread and relive what you did.  Supernatural miracles are not natural   
   mechanisms for evolution.  They are denying that biological evolution is   
   due to natural processes because they are claiming that unnatural   
   processes (supernatural miracles) were needed to do specific biblical   
   literalist interpretations of what had to happen to evolve man in the   
   image of their god.  This is no different from Behe's tweeker designer   
   claims.  Just because they understand that Behe's argument to support   
   the tweeking is bogus, doesn't change the fact that they are tweekers   
   too.  Behe needed supernatural miracles, but he wasn't as honest about   
   it as these guys are.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   >   
   >   
   >> when you know that I was always claiming that it was not all   
   >> natural with their claim about taking the Bible literally, their belief   
   >> in supernatural miracles, and their belief that their god was   
   >> manipulating nature in the past and still is.  They deny natural   
   >> mechanisms as much as Behe when he claims that his god was needed to   
   >> evolve the flagellum, and these guys are claiming that their god made   
   >> man in his own image, a claim that they make due to their literal   
   >> interpretation of the Bible.  Behe has never claimed how his designer   
   >> did it except for his off the cuff "puffs of smoke", but these guys are   
   >> outright claiming supernatural miracles.  Your lies were never needed,   
   >> and were only used because you couldn't deal with the reality that some   
   >> of these guys are tweekers like an ID perp such as Behe.   
   >   
   >   
   > [snip repetitive earlier posts]   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)