From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:32:39 -0500, RonO    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   I didn't run from any quotes, on the contrary I endorsed them. What I   
   did was disagree with *your conclusions* which you tried to present as   
   some sort of established fact. You have this rather weird notion that   
   when somebody disagrees with your conclusions, they are telling lies.   
   That's not just with me, I've seen you do it with other people.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
      
   You keep bringing up miracles as some form of tweaking. Behe gives 3   
   specific examples of what you regard as tweaking.  His bacterial   
   flagellum is a new life form; his blood clotting cascade and the   
   immune system affect multiple species and all individuals belonging to   
   each specie. Please give an example of a miracle that Biologos claims   
   to create a newlifeform or affect an entire species - just one example   
   will do.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >> [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-accou   
   t-for-the-complexity-of-life-on-earth-today   
   >   
   >It doesn't matter.   
      
   It matters because you insist they are the same as Behe yet they   
   outright reject his acclaims.   
      
   >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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)