[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>>>> You keep bringing up miracles as some form of tweaking. Behe gives 3   
   >>>>>>>>>> specific examples of what you regard as tweaking.  His bacterial   
   >>>>>>>>>> flagellum is a new life form; his blood clotting cascade and the   
   >>>>>>>>>> immune system affect multiple species and all individuals belonging   
   to   
   >>>>>>>>>> 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-evolu   
   ion-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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)