From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 18:11:27 -0500, RonO    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 3/19/2025 3:36 PM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>   And so the bullshit contuue to fly.n Wed, 19 Mar 2025 13:30:04 -0500,   
   >> RonO  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 3/19/2025 10:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)