Re: Evolutionary creationism

On 3/20/2025 11:28 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 18:11:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
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 <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 3/19/2025 10:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 10:01:39 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/19/2025 8:28 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 08:12:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/19/2025 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:32:39 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/18/2025 12:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 08:41:05 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/18/2025 3:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

rOn Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:42:09 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
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.

>
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-evolution-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
rejecting natural causes of evolution yet you accuse them collectively
of denying it.

>
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.

>
>
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