Re: Evolutionary creationism

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.

 

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.

 [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.  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.  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.  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 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]