Re: Prof Waagen says evolution is not by chance as Darwin supposed

On Sep 20, 7:36 am, backspace <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The more you rant about language, the less intellegible you become.

On this thread - "Transfer function of a cat and mouse in Laplace
domain"http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/7280f77...
I posted an extensive reply to CJ on how one must refer to the
pragmatics Darwin had with Natural Selection in terms of
1) Artificial Selection
2) Natural Selection
3) Survival of the fittest,
the phrases that he conflated it with. Darwin was a confused man, in
1860 he wrote in a letter that he should have used "Natural
Preservation", instead of Natural selection. He had no idea what he
was trying to say.

Maybe preservation is a better adjective than selection, but the
terminology has been fixed by now.

{{{
To answer your question we need to refer to the sixth element in
Werner von Gitt information theory, what he calls Aphobetics.

???

Seehttp://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Was-Information-Werner-Gitt/dp/389397...
What is the purpose or aphobetics that the teacher had when writing
"Natural Selection" as a single phrase on the blackboard while you sat
there in class as a 6-year old?. The aphobetics that the teacher was
trying communicate with "Natural Selection" was atheism.

That's why they teach it in Catholic schools.

The agenda or
purpose is to turn every kid in America into a Godless heathen with
this phrase "Natural Selection" and this has been remarkably
successful.

I beg to disagree.
Strategies to turn American kids into Godless heathens haven't been
particularly successful.
Outside America, they seem to work.

They got away with this because the teacher never told you
what was his pragmatics with "Natural selection" nor about what sort
of structural ambiguity as MIT puts it could there possibly be with
this phrase.

???

This inability to discern SA has lead to the pragmatics communicated
by Behe and Dembski with "irreducible complexity" and "intelligent
design" being derogetarily referred to by the evolutionists. But the
pragmatics with IC has been communicated
in the past with just different terminology. For example it was argued
in the past that a human must have all the organs: liver,heart all
working at the same time INTERDEPENDENTLY or wouldn't have a human in
the first place to begin with.

Which has been show to be false.

Artificial selection and NS was only coined in 1859 by Darwin. He used
artificial selection only once. For example he says man is "feeble".
The pragmatics Darwin had with natural selection must be evaluated in
the light of his other phrase artificial selection and "survival of
the fittest". "artificial" has a pejorative intent in most instances
and this pejorative pragmatics is clear when Darwin said:''"...Slow
though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do much by
artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of change, to
the beauty and complexity of the coadaptations between all organic
beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of life,
which may have been effected in the long course of time through
nature's power of selection, that is by the survival of the
fittest...."''

I simply can't deduce from OriginSpecies what was Darwin's pragmatics
with
1) Artificial Selection
2) Natural Selection
3) Survival of the fittest.

You can't understand any of these phrases independently from the
others. So Cj if you ask "...what part of natural don't you
understand..." I say that you must specify your question in terms of
all three these phrases and clearly tell me what possible structural
ambiguities could there be with these phrases from one person to the
next. Darwin wrote in 1860 that he regretted using "natural selection"
and should have used "Natural preservation". The title of Darwin's
book was "....natural selection, or the preservation of favoured
races..." So Darwin's intent with NS had something to do with his view
that whites are more civilized than blacks. When you say "natural" are
you personally thinking in such terms? Most people would not yet they
all think that their "natural" is the same "natural" as Darwin's
pragmatics with "natural". My hunch is that Dernavich doesn't know
about the concept of a structural ambiguity - seemingly only the
linguistics faculty of MIT does -http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Linguistics-and-Philosophy/24-903Spring-200...

Unintellegible.

To try and understand the aphobetics and pragmatics with NS and AS we
must take note of when the phrases were coined. Then we must ask
ourselves what sort of pragmatics in 1859 that Darwin communicated
could have existed before his time. Your agenda and your world view
would influence your general aphobetics you have with language itself.
And we can clearly see this with what Gould and Dr.Wilkins have said
about language and the mind itself. You can't really interpret
anything a person says before you know what he believes about
consciousness and language itself.

?

My agenda or world view about language itself is that Jesus Christ who
gave me a supernatural language that is Slavic in nature and you can
listen to here -http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker- is
Language himself.
I posted a threadhttp://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=202001&page=1
and was engaged by linguists and atheists concerning my claim to be
perhaps the only Christian that can demonstrate Christs falsification
test. The thread had over 5000 views and this is what one atheist said
about my tongues:
..Honestly, if I had got these audio recordings from somewhere else,
say the BBC, I would have fell for it if they said that it was a
language. It sounds to me like: a Slavic language mixed with a touch
of semitic peppered with Greek. But I don't know any of those
languages...."

Insane.

Jesus is language incarnate in flesh and by his language he spoke all
matter into existence.

So why did he have to impregnate his mother to come into existence?

Atheists in turn given their premises must
believe that language is just molecules in motion and that everything
is relative including their language itself and that reality is what
make you reality to be including making language itself to mean
whatever you want it to mean.

I'm not an expert of English language, but this sentence looks
ungrammatical.

Which is why people like Steven Pinker
represent such a mental health threat to society


.

Relevant Pages