[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>> What's the point when everything I have asked you to give an example   
   >>>>> of, you have just ignored or handwaved away.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Just dodges to keep lying.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I asked you for an example of Biologos denying natural causes of   
   >>>>> evolution. No example. (You eventually tried to weasel-word your way   
   >>>>> out of it by saying you didn't claim they *literally* said it.)   
   >>>>   
   >>>> This was unnecessary, and you know it because they were claiming that   
   >>>> supernatural miracles were involved.  Supernatural miracles are not   
   >>>> natural causes.  They are literally admitting that natural causes were   
   >>>> not involved in their miracles.  Supernatural miracles are not natural   
   >>>> causes.  You knew this because you ran from the quotes to start lying   
   >>>> about the issue.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I asked you for an example of Biologos trying to force biological   
   >>>>> evolution into conforming with their Biblical interpretation. No   
   >>>>> example.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> They claimed that their Biblical literal interpretation made them   
   >>>> believe that their god created man in his own image.  This is no   
   >>>> different than Behe claiming that a designer was needed for his IC   
   >>>> systems.  They even claimed supernatural miracles were involved.  How is   
   >>>> that not forcing biological evolution into conforming to their Biblical   
   >>>> interpretations?  "In his image" is a Biblical literalist interpretation.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I asked you to identify somebody in Biologos supporting tweaking like   
   >>>>> Bhehe does. No example.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Why would this have ever been needed when we have the claims of Biologos   
   >>>> to evaluate with no author listed?  Just another dishonest dodge to keep   
   >>>> lying.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I asked you what science is contradicted by the miracle of Christs'   
   >>>>> Resurrection. No example.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> This isn't even relevant to what we are discussing.  Just another   
   >>>> dishonest dodge to continue lying.  Why would miracles have to   
   >>>> contradict science when supernatural miracles, by their very definition   
   >>>> fall out side of nature and so outside of the ability of science to make   
   >>>> any determination about them?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I asked you for a single example of any miracle claimed by Christians   
   >>>>> that contradicts evolution. No example.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Again, just a dishonest dodge to keep lying.  Why would this be relevant   
   >>>> to what you were lying about?  I don't even know why you would even   
   >>>> think this was relevant.  It is even a stupid request.  All you need to   
   >>>> understand is that the 7 days of creation were a series of miracles.   
   >>>> There are obviously Christians that believe that evolution did not   
   >>>> happen.  The Bible claims that land plants ere created before sea   
   >>>> creatures, but we know that sea creatures evolved over a hundred million   
   >>>> years before land plants evolved on this planet from fresh water algae,   
   >>>> and that the angiosperms mentioned in the Bible did not evolve until   
   >>>> after dinos became the dominant vertebrate tetrapod on land.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> There's no point in trying to continue a debate with you when you just   
   >>>>> ignore contradictory evidence to your claims and call the person   
   >>>>> presenting it a stupid liar. Do you think anyone takes your stupid   
   >>>>> insults seriously.?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> There is no reason to keep lying.  There is no contradictory evidence.   
   >>>> You were given the quotes that you needed and you decided to start lying   
   >>>> about reality instead of deal with reality.  You were a stupid liar.   
   >>>> Your continued dodges would indicate that you have put considerable   
   >>>> thought into lying about the issue, but what you came up with was   
   >>>> irrelevant or did not support your lying.  You might call that being   
   stupid.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Ron Okimoto   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Making claims about me does nothing   
   >>>>>> to change the fact that you understand that you have been lying.  What   
   >>>>>> is the definition of supernatural miracles?  Natural mechanisms would   
   >>>>>> not be responsible for what those supernatural miracles produced.  What   
   >>>>>> Trump does has nothing to do with you lying about reality.  If you have   
   >>>>>> some weird definition of supernatural miracles you should have addressed   
   >>>>>> it instead of running from the quotes and doing what you did.  You have   
   >>>>>> been stupid and dishonest.  I can't change that.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Ron Okimoto   
   >>>>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> The bullshit continue to fly. Sad really to see an intelligent guy   
   >>> making such a fool of himself :(   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >> Just keep lying about it.  It seems to be all that you can do.  Why no   
   >> counter except a stupid personal attack?  No more dishonest dodges to   
   >> pull out of the air?  You should have just addressed reality instead of   
   >> starting to lie about it.   
   >   
   > So you can call me stupid and a liar as much as you like but I cannot   
   > respond to it. That ties in well with your self-centred approach to   
   > this whole discussion - one rule for you, different rules for everyone   
   > else.   
   >   
      
   I just stated what you were doing.  What you put up about me was your   
   projection of what you have done to make a fool of yourself.  You could   
   not respond in any other way.  If I had been the one that had just been   
   demonstrated to have made a fool of himself, you would have been all   
   over my response to demonstrate that.  It should have been easy to do   
   because what I put up can easily be verified.  Nothing that I put up is   
   not well understood.  Your "one rule for you, and different rules for   
   everyone else." seems to be more projection of what you seem to be   
   doing.  You should have faced the quotes when they were first put up.   
   The reason for your denial of what they meant would have been exposed,   
   and you would have had an opportunity to demonstrate that your reasoning   
   was valid or invalid.  Just lying about the situation got you to where   
   you are now.  You are in denial of what you did, and are trying to   
   project your own foibles onto someone else.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)