Religion III

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

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.

He did not use the word "select." He used the word "selection" (which is a noun). The applicable definition of selection is "the production of more offspring by organisms with particular characteristics resulting in a greater probability of survival of the species."

The question is "did Darwin succeed in describing the process?" Did he communicate successfully. Do you or do you not understand his meaning?

What if, instead of "natural selection," he had used the term "differential survival."

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

He did not use the word "select." He used the word "selection" (which is a noun). The applicable definition of selection is "the production of more offspring by organisms with particular characteristics resulting in a greater probability of survival of the species."

The question is "did Darwin succeed in describing the process?" Did he communicate successfully. Do you or do you not understand his meaning?

What if, instead of "natural selection," he had used the term "differential survival."

To best understand what "selection" is to understand what the verb form of the noun means. Elementary, Dr. Watson. Darwin told the world that mudder nature selects, i.e. chooses this, that or some other thing and simply described the process as "natural selection". Dictionaries, to accommodate Darwinian theory, modified the meaning of "selection" by adding what they felt was the best "applicable definition".

So...my point stands. If you're going to tell us that "natural selection" involves no acts of selection (i.e. choices), then the term is nothing less than a mere euphemism -- simply tossed out there because it sounds better than a contrary alternative. On the other hand if you tell us that mother nature indeed makes selections (i.e. choices) such we intelligent, sentient beings do every day of our lives, then there must be intentionality and purpose beyond nature's choices; for nowhere else in life do we see acts of selections being made apart from intentionality and purpose.

Have a nice day.

[classhandicapper]

I think it’s way more likely that natural selection and mutations play only a small part in evolution and the real action is in epigenetics. We are “programmed” to slowly change as our environment slowly changes. It’s pure genius if I am right.

[classhandicapper]

What do people think of the idea that religion can be viewed as more of a philosophy and playbook for how people should live their lives to produce the best possible results for themselves and society rather than a more literal word of God?

[Actor]

A semantic argument is not going to falsify the theory of evolution. We already know that you are anti-science. (e.g., you don't believe the germ theory of disease.)

Originally Posted by boxcar

... for nowhere else in life do we see acts of selections being made apart from intentionality and purpose.

What about quantum mechanics where selection occurs frequently? If you think that these selections involve "intentionality and purpose" then you are back to the god of the gaps argument.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Have a nice day.

Here's an idea. Darwins Origin of Species is definitely in the public domain. It's also available online. So how about I download it and use a word processor to change every occurrence of "natural selection" with "differential survival," then publish. That should eliminate all semantic objections.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

A semantic argument is not going to falsify the theory of evolution. We already know that you are anti-science. (e.g., you don't believe the germ theory of disease.)
What about quantum mechanics where selection occurs frequently? If you think that these selections involve "intentionality and purpose" then you are back to the god of the gaps argument.

It's not a mere semantic argument. Christian apologists, as well as scientists who are Christians, have noted for a long time that antichrist scientists who deny Creationism, nonetheless cannot help but employ various terms or labels to their disciplines, most especially biology, that normally are used and apply with intelligence, intentionality and purpose. So...instead of Intelligent Selection, i.e. an intelligent being selecting this, that or some other thing, mother nature does through "natural selection".

Now...here's the kicker. There's a biblical reason why godless scientists cannot escape using terms when "doing" their science that denote intelligence, intentionality or purpose. Here it is:

Rom 1:18-20
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
NIV

So...godless men and women KNOW the truth -- but because they don't want the Creator in their world -- they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. This is why Darwin and numerous of other godless scientists MUST use terms that denote intelligence, intentionality and purpose even though the whole freakin' universe is an accident! The only reason the universe exists is because of Time and Chance. There is no intentionality or purpose behind the universe.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

There's a biblical reason why godless scientists cannot escape using terms when "doing" their science that denote intelligence, intentionality or purpose. Here it is:

Rom 1:18-20
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
NIV

Scripture proves nothing!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Scripture proves nothing!

Yeah, it does. Scripture proves that Darwin just could NOT help himself. He SELECTED the term "selection" because he had to come up with something that wouldn't be offensive to the world's sensibilities. So he came up with a nice sounding euphemism. But...as for Christians, we see through his darkness! We see that he just couldn't help but to attribute intentionality and purpose to the universe, to life...even though he said there wasn't any.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

... he said there wasn't any.

And I said the isn't any ... right here in River City. And I didn't get that from Darwin. I came up with it all by myself. So there!

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yeah, it does.

Whose scripture should we believe? Why the Bible. Why not the Hindu Vedas? Why not the Buddhist Sutras? Why not the Shinto Kami? Whose creation story should we believe? Why not the Norse story? Why not the Greco-Roman story with Zeus and all His crowd? Why not Stephen Hawking's version.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

And I said the isn't any ... right here in River City. And I didn't get that from Darwin. I came up with it all by myself. So there!

Well, then, I guess that puts you in the same class with the idiot Darwin.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Whose scripture should we believe? Why the Bible. Why not the Hindu Vedas? Why not the Buddhist Sutras? Why not the Shinto Kami? Whose creation story should we believe? Why not the Norse story? Why not the Greco-Roman story with Zeus and all His crowd? Why not Stephen Hawking's version.

Why not just continue as you are? Enjoy what little life you have left. This life is your only reward. Besides...you'll have all eternity to ponder answers to all your questions.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Well, then, I guess that puts you in the same class with the idiot Darwin.

Ad hominem attack!

And I don't think I'm worthy to be classed with Darwin.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why not just continue as you are? Enjoy what little life you have left.

That's the plan.

Originally Posted by boxcar

This life is your only reward.

Growing up in Oklahoma was a reward?

Originally Posted by boxcar

Besides...you'll have all eternity to ponder answers to all your questions.

The burden of proof is yours. Scripture still proves nothing!