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