Re: Evolutionary creationism

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.

>

 

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.
 

>
>

 
[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.

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.

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.

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.

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]
>