[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> 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   
   >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.   
      
   As above, please give a single example of any miracle accepted by   
   Biologos (o Christians in general) that contradicts 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.   
      
   Tony Pago was a Catholic and a geocentrist. You recently used another   
   Catholic geoecentrist to support your claims about heresy. That fact   
   that we know of at least two Catholic geoecentrists wouldn't make it   
   ok to accuse the Catholic Church of supporting geocentrism. You have   
   not been able to produce even one example of anyone from Biologos   
   rejecting natural causes of evolution yet you accuse them collectively   
   of denying it.   
      
      
      
   >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 really do need to grasp the idea that people disagreeing with your   
   ideas and opinions does not make them liars.   
      
   >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)