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


"backspace" <sawireless2000@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1192775226.478344.272730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 19, 4:50 am, "Cj" <cw...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I've wondered about the sound of a tail wagging... do you hear that a
lot in
your examination of the world you have created? Dogs, for example,
convey
their intent with their body language and us materialistic atheistic
scientists can reads their intent quite easily. Of course you have no
knowledge of animal behavior, why should you pay attention to something
that
isn't in your only book. By the way, do you ever read from your book?
What
would you like to know about the intent of dogs? Atheists know and can
predict canine behavior (their intent), have you a creationist that can
do
that? Have you a creationist that's a behavioral scientist? An
ethologist? Not even an ecologist? You're all alone aren't you? How
do
you feel about that?
Cj


Yes, sir we YEC are all alone and are being banished from society and
jobs because we refuse to damn our eternal souls
for getting a Phd or tenure by denying the truth. It is basically a
clash of world views. Materialists believe that matter and energy
created language and thus their language is what bouncing atoms makes
it to be.

YEC believe that Jesus Christ spoke the universe into existence 6000
years ago - that language created matter and energy not the other way
around.

Both these positions are of fundamentalist faith. The question is
which one is more reasonable? One can certainly argue for both views.
Since the materialist don't even know where to begin to argue for
their position, they have instead decided to make language undefined.
How could you possible purely on linguistic grounds have such a thing
as a "Theory of Selection" or "Theory of Natural Selection"? You can't
have a mechanistic description of an observation with the word
"selection" or "natural" in it. All science are subject unto
linguistics first. You first need to sort out semantics of the words
you use before we can to put forth theories.

What Fodor , Skell and Chomsky is trying to say is that evolutionists
are arguing for their materialist position by using words and phrases
not available to them given their premises - this is point of logic.


I am afraid you are over-simplifying the situation. What is true is, that
your position rests entirely on faith, faith in the Bible. It is a well
known fact that when people believe - and dearly want their belief to be
true, they will continue believing in spite of massive evidence for
alternatives.

You write:

All science are subject unto
linguistics first. You first need to sort out semantics of the words
you use before we can to put forth theories.

Aren't you overlooking the simple fact that your argument applies to
everything under the Sun, and to your religion as well?

The semantics of the words used in religious language points at quite
different conclusions than yours. Don't you know that words ar just - words,
and need to be read, intrerepreted and understond in a specific context?

Much of the language in the bible, for instance, is about spiritual
'subjects', i.e. non-existent subjects. The spirit world is non-material,
and cannot be captured in words. The ancients, however, created 'theories'
about the world by inventing gods - actually just another name for 'power'
or 'force' - the different forces manifest in the world. Like winds, rains,
earthquakes, the Sun, Moon, star and planets, comets and all sorts of
celestial objects and events.

Liek the words you use: How did Jesus come into existsence before anything
existed? How could he speak - when he had no physical apperance at all, no
organs for speech, and no 'world' into whinc to utter the words? No
language - languages were a thing of the future? The bible has two different
creations myths. The reason for that is simply that two different myths from
two different regions had been told and retold for many generations, and
were simply part of the religious flotsam that happend to have been written
down, and eventually made their way into the 'canon'.

Now, with respect to science, are you denying the fact that there exists a
lot of tangible, observable, undeniable evidence for what it says?

You may dispute the conclusions, but take just one simple example:

Science has determined that some elemets are unstable, radioactive. They
disintegrate at a steady rate, called their half-life. If I get the terms
right here, writing from memory only, it is something like this: Some
elements, are very long-lived. The term half-life simply refers to the time
it takes for 50% of a piece of an element to decay, i.e. to change into
different, non-radiactive elements by the radioactive process, which simply
is the process of emitting radiation, which results in the atoms changing
into other elements.

Thus, Uranium gets changed into Lead. The fact of radioactivity and decay is
well understood and documented, and is a very important part of our modern
technologically advanced world. If science's understanding and handling of
the world and everything in it wera as flawed as your opinion about science
says, our modern civilisation siply could not function, could not exist.

The very same scientific theories that you ridicule are also the theories
upon whilch our entire modern world is built!

No amount of appeal to 'semantics' can spirit away the facts of our
sciences! Our lives, yours and mine, are in so many ways dependent on
correct understanding of the world that if your 'theory' about the stupidity
of science should be true, we would not be able to use the Internet, mobile
phone or satellite navigation systems, to name but a few.

My best advice for you on how you may continue being a believing YEC is to
adopt the position of palaeontologist Kurt Wise. Please look up:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html. There, you may use the
'find' function to find the name Kurt Wise. If you continue down to the
second instance, you will find some very relevant quotes. Here is just one
of them:

"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a
young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As
I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the
evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to
admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word
of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."

The rest of his opinions are also very interesting and you really ought to
learn what a learned scientist and devout Christian have to say about
creationism vs. science.

And in case you should be unawre of the fact, stubborn, Christian, religious
creationists, like Micheal J. Behe or William Dembski go a long ways towards
acceptance of the theory of evolution - as far as science's portrayal of the
historicity of evolution. What they categorically reject is the scientif
explanation of mechansm: Random Mutations and Natural Selection. According
to Behe et al., the scientifc explanatiion is not true. They claim that life
is so complex that evolution could only happen as a directed process;
divine intervention to make genetic changes.

So they, in addition to being creationists, also believe in an old Earth.
But that is not the whole story. They also have a science freak among them,
Salvador Cordova, who, while supporting the so-called theory of Intelligent
Design, at the same time also is a YEC.

If you want to prove a young Earth, you have a tough time before you! The
fact is: Nobody belives in a young Earth unless he has strong, religious
reasons for that belief. The rest of us who care more about facts than
faith, laugh at the YEC's


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... fundementalist churches of the USA and why they support creationism. ... Education, specifially science education, would I expect to be a major ... level scientists and research due to continued funding at the elite ... Whatever "health and vigor" Evolutionism enjoys is also caused by God. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... fundementalist churches of the USA and why they support creationism. ... Education, specifially science education, would I expect to be a major ... Whatever "health and vigor" Evolutionism enjoys is also caused by God. ... there are Creationist and ID scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... fundementalist churches of the USA and why they support creationism. ... Education, specifially science education, would I expect to be a major ... level scientists and research due to continued funding at the elite ... Whatever "health and vigor" Evolutionism enjoys is also caused by God. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
    ... or Paleyan Design controlled science before the rise of ... No one disputes that before 1859 Creationism was the view of science. ... or all scientists were creationists. ... evolution has defined itself as true. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... fundementalist churches of the USA and why they support creationism. ... Education, specifially science education, would I expect to be a major ... Whatever "health and vigor" Evolutionism enjoys is also caused by God. ... And there are Buddhist and Muslim scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)