[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-acc   
   unt-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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)