Article <vrhl7g$3ooht$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<vrhl7g$3ooht$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.xcski.com!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionary creationism
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:02:23 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 469
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vrhl7g$3ooht$1@dont-email.me>
References: <an9itjd1fq7mpm5ieurhocml3dqprd67vp@4ax.com>
 <vrbt5h$2io2n$1@dont-email.me> <ol8jtj5aeheqpf6f7hnbok176nrf4r2ion@4ax.com>
 <vrcsa8$3ev76$1@dont-email.me> <g29ltj18v4dd5nqcs5kvlv87rfgsqci6a8@4ax.com>
 <vrefsr$u5df$1@dont-email.me> <vihltjtp3u0snr25sm0tqlkh20pogvdigt@4ax.com>
 <vrem8j$12619$1@dont-email.me> <ukpltjdtafbq4it85c2ss00nsrolpv0r0d@4ax.com>
 <vrf2fe$1ei06$1@dont-email.me> <eiamtj9di10srcei8e59520uahfa4b9hcm@4ax.com>
 <vrfiuv$1rl81$1@dont-email.me> <scgotj9au0c1v4ua1p5jrj00d31ndn5rkh@4ax.com>
Reply-To: rokimoto557@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="9071"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ujTt2wyeqrd9D8IyY4HOmL2kfvw=
In-Reply-To: <scgotj9au0c1v4ua1p5jrj00d31ndn5rkh@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
	DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO,
	FREEMAIL_REPLYTO_END_DIGIT,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,
	RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED,
	RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,
	URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS,URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS,
	USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org
Bytes: 29302

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.
>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========