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