From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 3/19/2025 8:28 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 08:12:58 -0500, RonO    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 3/19/2025 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> Why lie about what you did.  Go up and see for yourself.  You left the   
   >> quotes in, but ran from them and started lying about what they meant.   
   >> What is the definition of supernatural miracles?   
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> They claim that their god made man in his own image (one of the quotes   
   >> that you are denial of), and they claim that their Biblical literalist   
   >> interpretation makes them believe that.  Not only that, but they do not   
   >> have to make specific claims about what miracles had to occur, just that   
   >> they did occur.  Behe's claims are not about new lifeforms, but about   
   >> subsystems within existing lifeforms that existed at that time.  Behe   
   >> has claimed that his designer would have been responsible for creating 3   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)