Religion III

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Ad hominem attack.

How so? "Natural selection" can, apparently, do anything it wants. In your case, it flipped you the bird.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

How so?

You don't know what an ad hominem is?

Originally Posted by boxcar

"Natural selection" can, apparently, do anything it wants.

Natural selection is a process, like fire, weather, etc. It does not "want" anything.

Meanwhile natural selection has provided me with two post graduate degrees.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You don't know what an ad hominem is?
Natural selection is a process, like fire, weather, etc. It does not "want" anything.

Meanwhile natural selection has provided me with two post graduate degrees.

From DDU where none of the professors could ever find their butt even though both their hands were ducked taped to it?

And why do they name this natural process "selection"? To select something is to make a choice. It is to choose. It is to decide. These are things intelligent beings do.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And why do they name this natural process "selection"? To select something is to make a choice. It is to choose. It is to decide. These are things intelligent beings do.

Webster's Dictionary specifically defines "biological selection" in a manner which excludes a choice by an intelligent being. Would "survival of the fittest" make you happier.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Webster's Dictionary specifically defines "biological selection" in a manner which excludes a choice by an intelligent being. Would "survival of the fittest" make you happier.

Still can't get rid of the term "selection", can you? Select -- derived from elect.
Who would ever thunk that biology would be such a brain? Oh yeah...the God-deniers.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Still can't get rid of the term "selection", can you?

Why should I get rid of it? It conveys the intended meaning. As Socrates said, "the beginning of wisdom is a definition of terms." What you are doing is called equivocation.

As Henry Drummond said: "Language is a poor enough means of communication. I think we should use all the words we've got. Besides, there are damn few words that anybody understands."

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

From DDU ...

1. I'll bite. WTF is DDU? Don't tell me to google it. I've tried it and of all the stuff that comes nothing fits.

2. What university did you go to?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Why should I get rid of it? It conveys the intended meaning. As Socrates said, "the beginning of wisdom is a definition of terms." What you are doing is called equivocation.

As Henry Drummond said: "Language is a poor enough means of communication. I think we should use all the words we've got. Besides, there are damn few words that anybody understands."

Because "selection" is derived from election; both denote intelligence behind the choosing.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

1. I'll bite. WTF is DDU? Don't tell me to google it. I've tried it and of all the stuff that comes nothing fits.

2. What university did you go to?

Try Dumb Down University. It fits you to a tee.

And I graduated from HKU (Hard Knocks University) cum laude.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

... "selection" is derived from election; ...

No, it is not.

I looked up the etymology of "selection." It's first use was in 1805 and its meaning was biological.

The word "election" first appears in the English language about 1300 C.E. The word "election" in a religious sense first appeared about 1400 C.E.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

No, it is not.

I looked up the etymology of "selection." It's first use was in 1805 and its meaning was biological.

The word "election" first appears in the English language about 1300 C.E. The word "election" in a religious sense first appeared about 1400 C.E.

Wrong! Darwin extended the normal use of the word to conveniently fit his worldview.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/selection

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Darwin extended the normal use of the word to conveniently fit his worldview.

And there's nothing wrong with that. The purpose of language is effective communication.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

And there's nothing wrong with that. The purpose of language is effective communication.

But Darwin's choice of words contradicts his very premise that the universe and all in it is a huge accident -- it all just happened by time and chance -- whatever that "all" is. It's the height of duplicity to tell the unwashed masses that the universe just happened with no rhyme or reason in one breath, and then in the next talk about nature making choices.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But Darwin's choice of words contradicts his very premise that the universe and all in it is a huge accident -- it all just happened by time and chance -- whatever that "all" is. It's the height of duplicity to tell the unwashed masses that the universe just happened with no rhyme or reason in one breath, and then in the next talk about nature making choices.

Darwin did not say that nature makes choices. Read his book and then if you still think he said that then read it again because you did not understand it the first time.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Darwin did not say that nature makes choices. Read his book and then if you still think he said that then read it again because you did not understand it the first time.

Darwin didn't say it explicitly, but the word that he CHOSE -- the word he SELECTED -- says it, i.e "selection". Read the definition of the verb "select". It makes to choose, to pick out, to make a choice. All of which are things that intelligent, rational beings do.