From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:02:23 -0500, RonO    
   wrote:   
      
   >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)