[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> Behe understood that parts of the flagellum like the F0 ATPase motor had   
   >>> existed for a couple billion years before it was used in the flagellum.   
   >>> It likely evolved in the first chemotrophes before it was also used in   
   >>> photosynthesis, and then in oxidative phosphorylation.  Behe was a   
   >>> 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-a   
   count-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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)