[continued from previous message]   
      
   tweeker.  His designer was working within an evolutionary framework to   
   create what he wanted created.  Behe's designer was obviously modifying   
   existing functional units, and putting them together to do different things.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> [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-acco   
   nt-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.   
      
   You know that it doesn't matter how bogus Behe's argument to support his   
   tweeking is.  They are obviously not against his tweeking claims.   
      
   >   
   >> 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   
   >> 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.   
      
   As above lying about what their reliance on supernatural mechanisms   
   means is just stupid and dishonest.  Supernatural is not natural by   
   definition.  Their claims that the supernatural was needed and is still   
   going on means exactly what I have always claimed.  They are tweekers   
   that are in just as much denial of natural mechanisms being able to make   
   man in their god's image as Behe is.  Behe's argument has been denial   
   that natural mechanisms can account for his IC systems, he just never   
   would admit to what he thought actually happened.  These guys are not   
   that dishonest and claim supernatural miracles were needed and are still   
   needed to shape the creation and manage it.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >> 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.   
      
   Why keep lying about the past.  It was you that could not even deal with   
   what your trusted Catholic source claimed about heliocentrism being a   
   heresy.  The sources that I came up with also claimed that heliocentrism   
   was a heresy both times Galileo faced the charges.  Three of them agreed   
   that it was a formal heresy when Galileo first faced the charge in   
   1615-1616 (the anti-geocentric Catholic source, the conservative   
   Catholic source, and the geocentric wiki).  The conservative Catholic   
   source claimed that it was also a formal heresy when Galileo faced the   
   charges the second time with papal involvement.  The other two sources   
   noted that it was only claimed to have been a heresy in the sentencing,   
   and the word formal had been omitted.  The anti-geocentric site claimed   
   that the 1616 inquisition judgement had not been accepted by the later   
   court, but then they also tried to claim that the sentencing had been   
   poorly written, and that Galileo had actually been found guilty of   
   breaking his oath to the 1616 inquisition.  This would mean that the   
   later court had accepted the 1616 inquisition judgement.   
      
   The Catholic church still has geocentric creationists like Pagano   
   because they claim that heliocentrism is still a heresy, and that it has   
   never been negated as a heresy.  The anti-geocentric site put up the   
   1822 Papal decree that removed heliocentrism from all banned lists, and   
   that it could be used to tell time and calculate celestial movements.   
   The geocentric catholics claim is that heliocentrism did not stop being   
   a heresy because there were still restrictions placed on what could be   
   published about it.  These restrictions were not stated in the decree,   
   just that you had to consult the proper church officer.  A site that I   
   put up years ago claimed that this decree just set things back to what   
   was in place due to the Council of Trent, before heliocentric   
   publications were banned, and that heliocentrism could still not be used   
   in relation to the beliefs of the church fathers.  After the Council of   
   Trent heliocentrism became a heresy because all the church fathers were   
   geocentrists.  The anti-geocentric Catholic site agrees with what the   
   Council of trent did, and even admit that heliocentrism was s formal   
   heresy when Galileo first faced the charge in 1616.   
      
   Your stupidity about geocentrism is likely directly related to your   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)