From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 3/20/2025 11:28 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)