From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 10:01:39 -0500, RonO    
   wrote:   
      
   >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   
   >>> neutral mutations in order to evolve a new function like the flagellum.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)