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