Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    talk.origins    |    Evolution versus creationism (sometimes    |    142,579 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 140,775 of 142,579    |
|    RonO to Martin Harran    |
|    Re: Evolutionary creationism (3/4)    |
|    20 Mar 25 13:02:23    |
      [continued from previous message]              >>>>>>>> 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.       >>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>> The Catholic church still has geocentric creationists like Pagano       >>>>>>>> because they claim that heliocentrism is still a heresy, and that it       has       >>>>>>>> never been negated as a heresy. The anti-geocentric site put up the       >>>>>>>> 1822 Papal decree that removed heliocentrism from all banned lists,       and       >>>>>>>> that it could be used to tell time and calculate celestial movements.       >>>>>>>> The geocentric catholics claim is that heliocentrism did not stop       being       >>>>>>>> a heresy because there were still restrictions placed on what could be       >>>>>>>> published about it. These restrictions were not stated in the decree,       >>>>>>>> just that you had to consult the proper church officer. A site that I       >>>>>>>> put up years ago claimed that this decree just set things back to what       >>>>>>>> was in place due to the Council of Trent, before heliocentric       >>>>>>>> publications were banned, and that heliocentrism could still not be       used       >>>>>>>> in relation to the beliefs of the church fathers. After the Council       of       >>>>>>>> Trent heliocentrism became a heresy because all the church fathers       were       >>>>>>>> geocentrists. The anti-geocentric Catholic site agrees with what the       >>>>>>>> Council of trent did, and even admit that heliocentrism was s formal       >>>>>>>> heresy when Galileo first faced the charge in 1616.       >>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>> Your stupidity about geocentrism is likely directly related to your       >>>>>>>> stupidity and lies about the current topic. You just can't accept       >>>>>>>> reality for what it is, even if you have to deny what your own trusted       >>>>>>>> source told you.       >>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>> The Biologos creationists just claim what they claim. You have to       keep       >>>>>>>> lying about it for your own stupid reasons.       >>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>>>> The Reason to       >>>>>>>>>> Believe exIDiots claim that their designer only made it look like       >>>>>>>>>> biological evolution happened and is still happening by       "recreating" new       >>>>>>>>>> species just a little different from the previously existing       species.       >>>>>>>>>> It is so much like evolution that the new recreation can even       interbreed       >>>>>>>>>> sometimes with the previously existing species. None of the       Biologos       >>>>>>>>>> evolutionary creationists are likely that badly off, but they still       >>>>>>>>>> claim that supernatural miracles were needed.       >>>>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>>>> Just admit that you have been lying, and quit lying.       >>>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>>> You really do need to grasp the idea that people disagreeing with       your       >>>>>>>>> ideas and opinions does not make them liars.       >>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>> Just admit that you have been lying since you ran from the quotes the       >>>>>>>> first time and started lying. Nothing has changed. The Biologos       >>>>>>>> creationist claimed what they are quoted as claiming. They are       biblical       >>>>>>>> literalists that beileve that evolution is a fact of nature, but they       >>>>>>>> believe in Biblical claims like their god making man in his own image,       >>>>>>>> and they believe that this god used supernatural miracles in the       >>>>>>>> creation and is still using supernatural miracles today. The use of       >>>>>>>> supernatural mechanisms is a denial of using natural mechanisms in       those       >>>>>>>> cases by definition. Natural mechanisms did not do what was       >>>>>>>> accomplished by supernatural miracles.       >>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto       >>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>>>> You understood       >>>>>>>>>> that you were lying when you ran from the quotes and started to       lie, and       >>>>>>>>>> nothing has changed. The quotes are what they are. Just go up the       >>>>>>>>>> thread and relive what you did. Supernatural miracles are not       natural       >>>>>>>>>> mechanisms for evolution. They are denying that biological       evolution is       >>>>>>>>>> due to natural processes because they are claiming that unnatural       >>>>>>>>>> processes (supernatural miracles) were needed to do specific       biblical       >>>>>>>>>> literalist interpretations of what had to happen to evolve man in       the       >>>>>>>>>> image of their god. This is no different from Behe's tweeker       designer       >>>>>>>>>> claims. Just because they understand that Behe's argument to       support       >>>>>>>>>> the tweeking is bogus, doesn't change the fact that they are       tweekers       >>>>>>>>>> too. Behe needed supernatural miracles, but he wasn't as honest       about       >>>>>>>>>> it as these guys are.       >>>>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto       >>>>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>>>>>> when you know that I was always claiming that it was not all       >>>>>>>>>>>> natural with their claim about taking the Bible literally, their       belief       >>>>>>>>>>>> in supernatural miracles, and their belief that their god was       >>>>>>>>>>>> manipulating nature in the past and still is. They deny natural       >>>>>>>>>>>> mechanisms as much as Behe when he claims that his god was needed       to       >>>>>>>>>>>> evolve the flagellum, and these guys are claiming that their god       made       >>>>>>>>>>>> man in his own image, a claim that they make due to their literal       >>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation of the Bible. Behe has never claimed how his       designer       >>>>>>>>>>>> did it except for his off the cuff "puffs of smoke", but these       guys are       >>>>>>>>>>>> outright claiming supernatural miracles. Your lies were never       needed,       >>>>>>>>>>>> and were only used because you couldn't deal with the reality       that some       >>>>>>>>>>>> of these guys are tweekers like an ID perp such as Behe.       >>>>>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>>>>> [snip repetitive earlier posts]       >>>>>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>       >>>>>>>       >>>>>>> I knew your pathetic screeching about people who disagree with you       >>>>>>> being stupid and liars reminded me of someone. I've just been reading       >>>>>>> about Trump calling the judge who overruled him a ""a Radical Left       >>>>>>> Lunatic Judge". That's exactly who you are like, Donald Trump and I       >>>>>>> guess that trying to have a reasoned debate with you is just like       >>>>>>> trying to have one with him, a totally stupid waste of time so I guess       >>>>>>> I have been stupid in that regard.       >>>>>>>       >>>>>>       >>>>>> No counter to the fact that you have been lying about this issue since       >>>>>> running from the quoted material.       >>>>>       >>>>>              [continued in next message]              --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca