Re: Natural selection is a false term - says Darwin in Origin Species

On Oct 6, 4:28 am, backspace <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 6, 10:03 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Meaning is semantics. To get the meaning of a word we define the word
and what it implies at dictionary.com.
...which means that before dictionary.com was devised no word in any
language had any meaning at all.
I wonder how we managed to communicate at all?

Good question, what you are really asking is where did language
originate? Chomsky says that natural selection can't explain where
language came from. Language came from God who have existed since
before eternity began.

So... English has always been here! And you believe the authority of
dictionaries trumps God. Hmmm. What did he say about people who coin
words like "naturaled" when they contribute nothing to communication?


The words "selection" and "choice" like love, truth, mercy, kindness
and integrity were given to us by God himself.

Did God give us words like courage, honesty, facts, and reason, or are
they of the Devil?

These words are eternal
words, they in a sense belong to God and no man dares change their
meaning.

Bwahahahaha! And yet you feel free to use "pragmatics" interchangeably
with "meaning" and "definition". Cheeky, fellow, aren't you.

If the meaning of these were to change language itself
becomes undefined.

Then why do you use language in such a confused and dishonest manner?

And if language becomes undefined nobody can
communicate their intent anymore.

I rarely give my intent to anyone; it usually does not concern me, and
even more rarely is it anyone else's business. But I almost always
want to make my *meaning clear.

Do you understand me?

One can coin new phrases and
technical jargon terms such quantum mechanics and the meaning can
change with such terms. But with with a word like "selection" and
"choice" , the meaning and intent is eternally fixed by God himself.

Bwahahahahahaha!

Are you seriously suggesting that English was spoken in the Garden, or
is it part of the collective punishment at Babel? I hope you aren't
ignoring that story, and think that a structure built by humans - a
church - is going to get you to the Kingdom of God. If you did, you
would be punished by being made incomprehensible to others!

Oh - wait.


Believing that in the beginning was language and information gives one
an absolute frame of reference.

So you try to be more rigid than disciplined scientists in their own
fields, with the results that you cannot understand simple and clear
explanations, and coin outrageous and awkward neologisms, use mediocre
dictionaries as authorities on ideas, and deliberately misrepresent
the statements of others in order to pass them off as confusing.

You are simultaneously pathetic, dishonest, and feeble-minded.

You can look those words up.

Language is neither matter nor energy
and no materialism that fails to take note of this can survive -
paraphrasing Norbert Weiner from MIT.

Whether or not you "paraphrased" him correctly, I don't recall anyone
here suggesting otherwise.


Christ said that "...for every idle word man shall speak he will give
account thereof in the day of judgment..."

Gosh. How many times have you said "pragmatics"...

When God asks you what you mean by what you say, perhaps you can
explain to him that he should have said "intent".


This term NS has become so pervasive that nobody from Ken Ham to
Dawkins questions why are we using this phrase.

Correct. Like all language, it's a term made by a human to refer to
something important in that human's life. Everybody in the field of
evolutionary science, and everyone interested in it, understands what
it means. Except, perhaps, a handful of Creationists who cannot refute
the facts, nor find fault with the explanatory model, and so instead
try to attack it by misrepresenting it.

Some of them, I suppose, could be genuinely stupid.

Natural selection and
evolution for example are used so inter-changeably that nobody even
notices that there is supposed to be some sort of difference between
the two words. And having Ruse tell Dobbs on CNN that "Darwinism" is
the mechanism for evolution only adds to the confusion, since most
evolutionists would ascribe such a statement to creationists.

The world must be a scary place for you. Words mean so many things to
so many people. If only we all spoke English exactly as you do, as God
intended!

But technical terms like NS have generally accepted meanings, and we
have defined it for you numerous times.


We observe the moon circling the earth and label it as gravity.

I've never heard anyone call the moon's orbiting the Earth "gravity".
You have a serious confusion of ideas; your mind seems jumbled and the
logical connections between concepts are vague; you seem too
distracted by your language obsession.

Labeling it doesn't explain why the moon is pulled towards the earth.

Correct. The *Theory of gravity explains it. But we need lables in
order to talk about something. I know God wanted us to just point at
car parts and grunt, but technical terms are really useful for the
rest of us.

In the same way labeling the observation of changing allele
frequencies as 'evolution' doesn't explain why they change.

Correct. The *Theory of Evolution is necessary for that. If you had
actually read Darwin's book rather than skimming it for the dirty
parts. you would have read about an early version of it.

Some even
label it 'Theory of evolution', confusing a theory and an observation.

Ummm, no. If we lazily refer to the Theory as simply "Evolution", we
conflate the two terms. When we specify "theory", we are clarifying
the distinction. Perhaps it is the clarification that confuses you.

A theory is a specification of the mechanism that causes the
observation.

I would call it a description of the model that explains it. But this
is the closet you have come to making sense since you started posting,
so kudos to you!


Bob Jones University forces one to do a course on why evolution is
wrong. And in the exam they ask a person questions about natural
selection. My reply would be "what naturaled and who did the
selecting" to each such question, with an explanation to the
instructor that since there no such thing as a "natural selection" his
question is meaningless.

I wonder if even Bob Jones U. would ask you what the Hell you were
talking about, or if you would be saved by the "don't ask, don't tell"
policy creationists of various stripes practice to maintain a unified
front against the evil forces of facts, science, knowledge, and
discipline.


If as Dernavich has argued that there is no such thing as natural
selection, then how can a Christian answer a question concerning it
where the premise is that natural selection is a valid concept?

Even if there were no such thing as NS, it would still be a valid
concept. As is a creator god, for example. Pretty much all cultures
have one - all different.

It
would be a loaded question like :"Do you still beat your wife". No
imagine you are forced to answer the question with either a Yes or No.
Anything else is considered sabotaging the exam and will get you
expelled.

I can talk about fire-breathing, flying dragons without claiming they
actually exist. Do you agree with my old metaphysics instructor that
there are no toy guns, because guns aren't toys?


Any Christian doing a course in evolution wether forced or not and
doesn't state that there is no such thing as a natural selection is
in a sense denying Christ wether you understand it or not.

I first learned about evolutionary science from a Christian. He said
science was studying how God does things. He held folks like you...
well, in low esteem. But he rarely used bad words. He mostly just
shook his and muttered when the subject of Creationists came up.

All the
early Christians had to do to avoid being tortured to death was say
"Caesar is Lord" .

And in 15-century Spain, all Jews and Muslims had to do to avoid being
tortured to death was declare Jesus their lord. See how that works?

But of course Jesus is Lord! And doing a course in
evolution at either Bob Jones , icr.org or Dawkins or MIT where you
are supposed to treat natural selection as actually meaning something
is in fact a denial of Christ - because there is no such thing as a
natural selection.

Sure there is. We have evidence for it. Where's your evidence for a
god of any sort, and where's your evidence that /she/he/it gave us
English?


This means that the academic world is largely closed for Christians,

No, just stupid people. It's a natural selection process :)

especially biology is off-limits. Only about engineering remains. Even
medicine is becoming impossible because the materialist priests force
you to do a course in evolution where you are supposed explain how
natural selection "does something".

I certainly wouldn't want a doctor who can't read a dictionary.

The truthful answer would be that
since there is no such thing as a natural selection it doesn't do
anything which means you fail the course and can't become a doctor.

You don't have to claim X is true to answer X in a test.

You have to decide between renouncing Christ and becoming a doctor -
these are choices.

You have to renounce being pig-headed ignorant, or a doctor, yes. Some
would dispute that this means the same as being a Christian (my friend
went on to get his PhD) but if you want to insist on this, that's your
prerogative.

You must understand the spiritual consequences of
saying you believe in something which doesn't exist like Ken Ham who
"believes in natural selection". Well so does Dawkins, so what is Ken
Ham then going on about then? This term NS has become so pervasive
that nobody from Ken Ham to Dawkins questions why are we using this
phrase. It is accepted as a given and everybody uses it. Natural
selection and evolution for example are used so interchangeably that
nobody even notices that there is supposed to be some sort of
difference between the two words. And having Ruse tell Dobbs on CNN
that "Darwinism" is the mechanism for evolution only adds to the
confusion, since most evolutionists would ascribe such a statement to
creationists.

Depends on the context, but I understand that this is a fuzzy concept
for you, at best.

<snip repetition>


If as Dernavich has argued that there is no such thing as natural
selection, then how can a Christian answer a question concerning it
where the premise is that natural selection is a valid concept? Such a
question would in essence be a LITMUS TEST.

Worse - you would be asked to look at evidence.

Reality has a godless bias.


Taking a course in evolution to get your credits to become a doctor is
like imagine the Apostle Paul doing a course in
Zeus studies having to answer a question:"How did Zeus create the
world?" a) In 10 days b)10million years. See there is no
option c)There is no such thing as a Zeus. Option (c) would not be
allowed as an answer at Bob Jones, MIT,http://www.icr.orgorhttp://www.answersingenesis.com

You haven't actually taken many higher level tests, have you?


With evolution we are dealing with nothing else but pantheism.

Science has no gods. Period. There are undoubtedly Pantheist
scientists, as there are Christian and Muslim and Hindu.

The
evolutionists are invoking nature as cause in and of itself because
God himself have eternally fixed the meaning the word "selection" as
being a conscious choice and the evolutionists can't change the
meaning of a word God has fixed for eternity. And thus as a Christian
to say you "believe" in
natural selection, you will be judged by God as saying you believe in
some sort of "nature selection force", wether you understand this or
not. Remember our premise as Christians is that God gave language and
that he established the absolute meanings of words. You must state
what you say in terms of your world view and my world view is that
"selection" has only one eternal meaning - the meaning God gave it
before he spoke time itself into existence.

No gods have eternally fixed the meanings of English words, you
fruitcake.


And thus my rebuttal to Harshman, Richard is very simple as to why
they can't use selection given their premises: The semantics of the
word was established by God himself and you as a mere mortal can't
change the meaning of such a word for this implies that God himself
becomes subject to your arbitrary definitions. Evolutionists create
their own reality, for them there can't be such a thing as objective
truth and absoluteness and language becomes whatever they define it
be. Like for example "selection" that they now want to define as not
being a conscious choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_language
http://home.comcast.net/~modean52/oeme_dictionaries.htm

Intent in Old English, BTW, meant "evil thought".
"intent [] evil ~ níðhete2 m hostility; hostile ~ inwitþanc2 m evil
thought"

Bwahahahaha!


As a 10 year old kid I communicated my intent to God by asking Christ
into my life. I felt my spirit being reborn in my stomach. By my words
I confessed Christ and was saved. At at 12 I said "I receive the Holy
Spirit" and spoke a supernatural Slavic like language, becoming
perhaps the only Christians who actually can speak in tongues. By my
words I called those things that be not as though they were. I was
saved by my words. By your words you shall condemned and by your words
you shall be justified. Ken Ham is condemning himself by his words - I
pray to God that he repents of his folly.

I was born again at nine; I was the precocious grandson of the
preacher. By thirteen I was an atheist. It was stupid stuff like your
posts which taught me that the adults around me were insane. I later
met sane Christians, and have a special fondnes for Zen Buddhists,
biblical literalists like you seem to be the ones that come up with
the truly goofball ideas.

Your speaking in tongues is simply a self-induced, minor, altered
state. The sounds you make are gibberish.

The miracle of the apostles speaking in tongues recorded in your book
of myths was speaking in actual *languages that they had not known
before - they taught and preached to strangers in the crowd from
foreign lands. They didn't just babble. Sheesh.


And thus my dear brothers and sisters in the Lord Jesus I motivate by
this posting why it is not possible to exclude your
religious beliefs in these evolution debates in an attempt at being
"scientific". The arguments from design form ID and their attempts to
hide their religious beliefs are mocked because nobody seems to get
it: Evolutionists do believe in design - the design by the nature
selection force. We all have beliefs, Christians believe that the
meaning of words given by God himself
are absolute and eternally fixed, evolutionists believe that they can
make words mean what each individual evolutionist wants to make it
mean as they each invent their own reality.

So God is like, 600 years old? Because you wouldn't be able to
understand English from before the Norman invasion.


The love of money is the root of all evil. icr.org and Ken Ham are
engaging in a scam - why ? Because they ask for funding, money is
involved. They can't admit that there is no such thing as a natural
selection because then there would be nothing further to talk about.

Right... Cruelty, sex crimes, lies, vanity, addictions, gambling -
they're all motivated by money. Uh-huh. Sure.


--
Falsify my Glossolaliahttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker

I readily agree that you probably periodically babble gibberish. *I
think it's God punishing you for thinking a religion will get you to
Heaven. But maybe it's nature's way of discouraging potential mates.

Kermit


.