Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionary creationism
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 13:06:43 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 90
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vqpu3j$23frg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vqnoka$1iv0p$1@dont-email.me>
 <bi20tj1lcsrgomah7btbodruunfc7j25sc@4ax.com> <vqpgt4$20jfl$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2s0tj5hl8tdacgmi29kslqea023dv30i6@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="68131"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:H94c4OzA63GFDtDWnRSEYERa2tQ=
In-Reply-To: <v2s0tj5hl8tdacgmi29kslqea023dv30i6@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6451

On 3/11/2025 12:21 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 09:21:24 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/11/2025 5:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 17:20:56 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> They are still not abiding by
>>>> Saint Augustine's admonishment about not using the Bible to make claims
>>>> about what we can determine for ourselves about nature, so my guess is
>>>> that their efforts can still fail to represent nature accurately
>>>> depending on how consistent with the Bible that they want to be.
>>>
>>> They are NOT in any way contradicting Saint Augustine's admonishment,
>>> they are following it perfectly.
>>>
>>> If you think differently then like MarkE, you haven't properly grasped
>>> the meaning of what St Augustine meant.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Please give an example of that.

You SNIPed it out.  The example was in their description of what they 
believed.  They believe that the Bible is the "inspired and 
authroitative word of God" and "First, that God created all things, 
including human beings in his own image.".  You have to read their web 
site to learn that some of them are tweekers that claim that their god 
was involved in guiding the evolution of life on earth.

> 
> 
>> That is exactly what Saint
>> Augustine warned against doing.
>>
>> This is just the next stage of science denial that some of them will use
>> their acceptance of some of the science to cover up.
> 
> That is pure conjecture on your part.

It is what some of them are already doing.  Some have given up on the 
science denial, but some are still looking for what they need to fit 
their god into what has happened in nature.

If they had given up on the science denial that Saint Ausgustine warned 
Christians about, it would not matter how biological evolution fit into 
their literal interpretation of the Bible.

> 
>> Some of them
>> likely have deistic notions like Denton, and do not require any designer
>> interference with evolution, but some of them are tweekers like Behe,
>> and still remain under Saint Augustine's admonishment.
> 
> More conjecture on your part. Unless of course you can provide
> specific examples.

They admit to it on their web site.  Some of them are still tweekers 
like Behe, and would be the same type of science denier as Behe is.  In 
order to abide by Saint Augustine's admonishment they wouldn't need to 
limit biological evolution due to their Biblical beliefs.  They claim 
that their god made humans in his own image using biological evolution. 
You do understand that there is a theological debate about what "in his 
image" means, right?  So what literal belief are they supporting and 
should they even be trying to support any of the interpretations?  Which 
Biblical beliefs are they willing to falsify using science?

Ron Okimoto

> 
>>
>> These creationists are claiming that some of the existing science is
>> consistent with their Biblical interpretation, but it is not consistent
>> with what other creationists believe.  If we rewrote the Bible today
>> with our current understanding of cosmology we would still be wrong
>> about some things, and they would have to be rewritten at some later
>> date.  Saint Augustine's admonishment makes it unnecessary to rewrite or
>> reinterpret the Bible.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>