Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

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

32 views
Skip to first unread message

backspace

unread,
Oct 3, 2007, 2:57:20 PM10/3/07
to
Finally passages that come at least close to addressing the whole
intent issue. Darwin talks about the objections to his term NS such as
that it personifies nature.

>No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of man's
>selection; and in this case the individual differences given by nature,
>which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur.
Of course we don't object because the intent with man selection is
conscious selection. In contrast nobody
knows what you were trying to say.


>Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the
>animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as plants
>have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!
>In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection IS A FALSE TERM;
No kidding hey!

>but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective affinities of the various elements?--and yet an acid >cannot
>strictly be said to elect the base with which it in preference combines.
Because the intent with the word "elect" is clear.

>It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to an
>author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the
>planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical
>expressions
Darwin, you see http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com , Gitt information
theory and Chomsky pragmatics came 150
years to late. Since nobody knew what your intent was, Hitler, Stalin
and Mussolini invented their own intent with natural selection.
Mussolini used you and Spencer's term "survival of the fittest" over
and over in his speeches as justification for war.

>So again it is difficult to avoid personifying the word Nature...
No, it isn't because you are the one using this term so you tell us
your intent. If you had no idea what you were trying to say how am I
supposed to know?

> but I mean by nature, only the product of many natural laws, and by laws the
> sequence of events as ascertained by us.
If we don't ascertain the laws then who will? And what are these laws,
these natural laws. You really had
no idea what you were trying to say hey Darwin. You were just a feeble
minded mathematically illiterate fool angry with God for loosing your
child and in the process damned mankind - everybody from YEC to
atheists now thinks they got naturaled.

> With a little familiarity such superficial objections will be forgotten.
Yes, Darwin they were forgotten for 150 years because nobody
understood that you didn't communicate any form of intent with this
piece of grammatical gargoyle - natural selection. This universal
mechanism of yours that explains everything.
-----

Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term Natural
Selection. Some have even imagined that natural selection induces
variability, whereas it implies only the preservation of such
variations as
arise and are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life.

No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of
man's
selection; and in this case the individual differences given by
nature,
which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur.

Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice
in the
animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as
plants
have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!

In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a
false term; but
who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective affinities of
the
various elements?--and yet an acid cannot strictly be said to elect
the
base with which it in preference combines.

It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power
or Deity; but who objects to an
author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements
of the
planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by such
metaphorical
expressions; and they are almost necessary for brevity. So again it
is
difficult to avoid personifying the word Nature; but I mean by nature,
only
the aggregate action and product of many natural laws, and by laws the
sequence of events as ascertained by us. With a little familiarity
such
superficial objections will be forgotten.
----------

Inez

unread,
Oct 3, 2007, 3:26:18 PM10/3/07
to
On Oct 3, 11:57 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Finally passages that come at least close to addressing the whole
> intent issue. Darwin talks about the objections to his term NS such as
> that it personifies nature.
>
<snip>

Is there a medicine that will cure backspace? I will gladly chip in a
few dollars to pay for the perscription.

richardal...@googlemail.com

unread,
Oct 3, 2007, 3:27:58 PM10/3/07
to
On 3 Oct, 19:57, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Finally passages that come at least close to addressing the whole
> intent issue. Darwin talks about the objections to his term NS such as
> that it personifies nature.
>
> >No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of man's
> >selection; and in this case the individual differences given by nature,
> >which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur.
>
> Of course we don't object because the intent with man selection is
> conscious selection. In contrast nobody
> knows what you were trying to say.
>
> >Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the
> >animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as plants
> >have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!
> >In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection IS A FALSE TERM;
>
> No kidding hey!
>
> >but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective affinities of the various elements?--and yet an acid >cannot
> >strictly be said to elect the base with which it in preference combines.
>
> Because the intent with the word "elect" is clear.
>
> >It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to an
> >author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the
> >planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical
> >expressions
>
> Darwin, you seehttp://www.cosmicfingerprints.com, Gitt information

It doesn't matter what Darwin's "intent" was. The fact is that he
communicated his ideas clearly, and that they formed the foundation of
modern evolutionary theory. The scientists who work in the field know
what is meant by "evolution" in the context of biology, and have been
carrying out research which has tested evolutionary theory rigorously
against the evidence for a century and a half.

The scientist working in the field know what Darwin's "intent" was,
and the "intent" of the many, many other contributors to evolutionary
science because they read what others write for comprehension, not in
a blatantly dishonest attempt to obfusticate and confuse. Evidently
such an exercise is beyond you, and you prefer to wallow in your
ignorance and stupidity as if that conferred some virtue on you.

Get a freaking life.

RF

John Harshman

unread,
Oct 3, 2007, 3:31:03 PM10/3/07
to
backspace wrote:

> Finally passages that come at least close to addressing the whole
> intent issue. Darwin talks about the objections to his term NS such as
> that it personifies nature.
>
>
>>No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of man's
>>selection; and in this case the individual differences given by nature,
>>which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur.
>
> Of course we don't object because the intent with man selection is
> conscious selection. In contrast nobody
> knows what you were trying to say.

If you're addressing Darwin here, you should know that he has never
posted to talk.origins, and I doubt he's a lurker either. And you're
wrong; lots of people know what Darwin was trying to say. I know, for one.

>>Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the
>>animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as plants
>>have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!
>>In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection IS A FALSE TERM;
>
> No kidding hey!
>
>
>> but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective
>> affinities of the various elements?--and yet an acid cannot
>> strictly be said to elect the base with which it in preference
>> combines.

> Because the intent with the word "elect" is clear.

It is? Why? "Elect" has just as much a connotation of conscious choice
as "select" does. So why do you object to the second but not the first?
Oh, I know. It's because you don't have a desperate personal need to
think that chemistry is false.

>> It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active
>> power or Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the
>> attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets? Every
>> one knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical

>> expressions.


>
> Darwin, you see http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com , Gitt information
> theory and Chomsky pragmatics came 150
> years to late. Since nobody knew what your intent was, Hitler, Stalin
> and Mussolini invented their own intent with natural selection.
> Mussolini used you and Spencer's term "survival of the fittest" over
> and over in his speeches as justification for war.

Do you really think that Mussolini had ever actually read Darwin? Or
that Hitler or Stalin had? I don't, and if they didn't, what would
Darwin's intent matter? Darwin is certainly not to blame for
misunderstandings by people who had never read anything he wrote. Nor is
any evolutionary biologist to blame for an dictator. Shame on you for
such a transparently false claim.

>>So again it is difficult to avoid personifying the word Nature...
>
> No, it isn't because you are the one using this term so you tell us
> your intent. If you had no idea what you were trying to say how am I
> supposed to know?

If. Darwin knew perfectly well what he was trying to say. So do I. If
you don't, that's your problem, but don't blame Darwin.

>>but I mean by nature, only the product of many natural laws, and by laws the
>>sequence of events as ascertained by us.
>
> If we don't ascertain the laws then who will? And what are these laws,
> these natural laws. You really had
> no idea what you were trying to say hey Darwin. You were just a feeble
> minded mathematically illiterate fool angry with God for loosing your
> child and in the process damned mankind - everybody from YEC to
> atheists now thinks they got naturaled.

There's your fake verb again. If you had bothered to learn anything you
would know that your conjecture about motivations here is wrong. Darwin
came up with natural selection long before losing his child. And again,
everyone but you understands what he's saying here.

>>With a little familiarity such superficial objections will be forgotten.
>
> Yes, Darwin they were forgotten for 150 years because nobody
> understood that you didn't communicate any form of intent with this
> piece of grammatical gargoyle - natural selection. This universal
> mechanism of yours that explains everything.

No it doesn't. It explains quite a few things, though, in a clear and
obvious fashion. Note, by the way, that this passage you quote explains
quite clearly and precisely tha the misunderstanding of natural
selection that you most often mention -- an idea of conscious choice in
the process -- is wrong. So it seems that you have destroyed any claim
you had that Darwin's intent is not clear.

[snip repetition]

John Harshman

unread,
Oct 3, 2007, 3:34:02 PM10/3/07
to
Inez wrote:

Well, the disease is clearly creationism, but in this patient it
presents in a unique way. Education is my usual prescription, but I
suspect he's allergic.

Richard Clayton

unread,
Oct 3, 2007, 3:38:42 PM10/3/07
to

There is no known cure, but the condition can be treated with small
doses of killfile.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." — Optimus Prime

Rusty Sites

unread,
Oct 3, 2007, 3:50:02 PM10/3/07
to
backspace wrote:
> Darwin, you see http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com , Gitt information
> theory and Chomsky pragmatics came 150
> years to late. Since nobody knew what your intent was, Hitler, Stalin


Hey, moron. Stalin didn't believe evolution was driven by natural
selection. He embraced the ideas of Lysenko with disastrous results.
He imprisoned (and maybe executed, I don't remember) people for
espousing the theory of evolution. Like you, he didn't find evolution
compatible with his ideology. I suppose a fact like that really doesn't
matter to you, though.

Greg Guarino

unread,
Oct 3, 2007, 4:16:06 PM10/3/07
to
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:57:20 -0700, backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Finally

Finally? Have books just recently reached your part of the world? This
quote is 150 years old.

>passages that come at least close to addressing the whole
>intent issue. Darwin talks about the objections to his term NS such as
>that it personifies nature.

And says, clearly and unequivocally, that it does not.

>>No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of man's
>>selection; and in this case the individual differences given by nature,
>>which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur.
>Of course we don't object because the intent with man selection is
>conscious selection. In contrast nobody
>knows what you were trying to say.

Everyone but you seems to do just fine.

>>Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the
>>animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as plants
>>have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!
>>In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection IS A FALSE TERM;
>No kidding hey!

Did you note the phrase "In the literal sense..."?

>>but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective affinities of the various elements?--and yet an acid >cannot
>>strictly be said to elect the base with which it in preference combines.
>Because the intent with the word "elect" is clear.

How so? Does not "elect" imply consciousness as much as "select" does.
They are nearly the same word!

>>It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to an
>>author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the
>>planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical
>>expressions

Ah yes, "metaphorical expressions", just what many of us have been
telling you all along.

>Darwin, you see http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com , Gitt information
>theory and Chomsky pragmatics came 150
>years to late. Since nobody knew what your intent was, Hitler, Stalin
>and Mussolini invented their own intent with natural selection.
>Mussolini used you and Spencer's term "survival of the fittest" over
>and over in his speeches as justification for war.

I won't bother checking to see whether or not that is accurate,
because it really doesn't matter. The power-hungry and warlike have
found useful phrases in the Bible as well. In any case, evolution does
not attempt to provide a code of behavior.

>>So again it is difficult to avoid personifying the word Nature...

>No, it isn't because you are the one using this term so you tell us
>your intent. If you had no idea what you were trying to say how am I
>supposed to know?

He knew perfectly well what he meant, as evidenced by his writing,
which you have so graciously provided an excellent and on-point
example of.

>> but I mean by nature, only the product of many natural laws, and by laws the
>> sequence of events as ascertained by us.

>If we don't ascertain the laws then who will?

As he wrote, "ascertained by us".

>And what are these laws,
>these natural laws.

He was expressing the point that "nature" as he used the word was not
an entity, but a shorthand term for the processes of life and the
environment. It is simply silly to demand that he recap all the laws
of nature. Any author has to assume a certain minimum level of
intelligence on the part of the reader. In this respect, I doubt that
Darwin had the prescience to foresee a person with your unique powers
of miscomprehension.

>You really had
>no idea what you were trying to say hey Darwin.
>You were just a feeble
>minded mathematically illiterate fool angry with God for loosing your
>child and in the process damned mankind - everybody from YEC to
>atheists now thinks they got naturaled.

Nope, only you. I defy you to find anyone else who has used that word.


>> With a little familiarity such superficial objections will be
forgotten.

And so they were.

>Yes, Darwin they were forgotten for 150 years because nobody
>understood that you didn't communicate any form of intent with this
>piece of grammatical gargoyle - natural selection. This universal
>mechanism of yours that explains everything.

Not everything. It explains how some variations become concentrated in
populations while others dwindle.

It is not often that a poster displays the courtesy and helpful
attitude that you have shown in this post. You have, of course, made
the same silly argument that yoiu have been making for some time. But
this time you have kindly provided us with an eloquent and
comprehensible quote from Darwin that completely destroys your
position, saving us the trouble of finding it ourselves.

Thank you.

Greg Guarino

backspace

unread,
Oct 3, 2007, 4:30:08 PM10/3/07
to
On Oct 3, 9:27 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> The scientists who work in the field know what is meant by "evolution" in the context of biology,

Until you define for me what exactly is the "context of biology" you
are not even wrong.

> carrying out research which has tested evolutionary theory rigorously
> against the evidence for a century and a half.

What theory? Where is your theory that explains how the software in
the chimpanzee brain enabled it to transform into a human - you know
that ape thing you people call a common ancestor , the one that wasn't
an ape it only looked like an ape.

Darwin:
"....Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious


choice in the animals which become modified; and it has even been
urged that, as plants have no volition, natural selection is not
applicable to them!
In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection IS A

FALSE TERM;...."

A volition is a choice or decision. Plants have no will or
consciousness, notice the exclamation mark in the sentence. So did
Darwin personify nature? No, since there is no such thing as a natural
selection. Something which doesn't exist can't personify anything.

If Darwin had said "Nature Selection force" his intent would have been
clear and then he would have personified nature. Natural Selection is
Darwin's term and only he knew what he intended with it. He had no
idea what a theory was, which is why nobody knows what is the
difference between the Theory of Natural Selection and Natural
Selection. ToNS was used 36 times. If you read these 36 passages he
never actually gave any theory which is why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
has no actual theory, just a bunch of appeals to abstract authority.
Such as for example:"...Although fitness is sometimes colloquially
understood as a quality that promotes survival of a particular
individual - as illustrated in the well-known phrase survival of the
fittest - modern evolutionary theory defines fitness in terms of
individual reproduction...."

Modern evolutionary theory didn't define anything, only a human being
could have defined fitness in terms of individual reproduction - who
was this person?

richardal...@googlemail.com

unread,
Oct 3, 2007, 4:51:02 PM10/3/07
to
On Oct 3, 9:30 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 9:27 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > The scientists who work in the field know what is meant by "evolution" in the context of biology,
>
> Until you define for me what exactly is the "context of biology" you
> are not even wrong.


Why? I'm an evolutionary biologist engaged in research in vertebrate
palaeontology.

If you refuse to learn about the subject it's your problem, not mine.

>
> > carrying out research which has tested evolutionary theory rigorously
> > against the evidence for a century and a half.
>
> What theory? Where is your theory that explains how the software in
> the chimpanzee brain enabled it to transform into a human - you know
> that ape thing you people call a common ancestor , the one that wasn't
> an ape it only looked like an ape.

Parading your dogmatic ignorance doesn't prove anything other than
that your are pathetic and stupid. It has been explained to you over
and over again that the common ancestor of men and other apes was an
ape.

Why do you have no better argument to offer than your refusal to
learn?

>
> Darwin:
> "....Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious
> choice in the animals which become modified; and it has even been
> urged that, as plants have no volition, natural selection is not
> applicable to them!
> In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection IS A
> FALSE TERM;...."
>
> A volition is a choice or decision. Plants have no will or
> consciousness, notice the exclamation mark in the sentence. So did
> Darwin personify nature? No, since there is no such thing as a natural
> selection. Something which doesn't exist can't personify anything.
>
> If Darwin had said "Nature Selection force" his intent would have been
> clear and then he would have personified nature. Natural Selection is
> Darwin's term and only he knew what he intended with it. He had no
> idea what a theory was, which is why nobody knows what is the
> difference between the Theory of Natural Selection and Natural
> Selection. ToNS was used 36 times. If you read these 36 passages he

> never actually gave any theory which is whyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection


> has no actual theory, just a bunch of appeals to abstract authority.
> Such as for example:"...Although fitness is sometimes colloquially
> understood as a quality that promotes survival of a particular
> individual - as illustrated in the well-known phrase survival of the
> fittest - modern evolutionary theory defines fitness in terms of
> individual reproduction...."
>
> Modern evolutionary theory didn't define anything, only a human being
> could have defined fitness in terms of individual reproduction - who
> was this person?

The people who bother to learn about modern evolutionary theory know
what the theory means and implies.

That's because they educated themselves in the subject.

As the only argument you seem to have to offer is your dogmatic
ignorance, I suggest that you try learning about the subject rather
than insisting on making yourself look unutterably foolish.

Still, your choice. If you think that stupidity advances your cause,
carry on being stupid.

RF

Inez

unread,
Oct 3, 2007, 4:56:51 PM10/3/07
to
On Oct 3, 1:30 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 9:27 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > The scientists who work in the field know what is meant by "evolution" in the context of biology,
>
> Until you define for me what exactly is the "context of biology" you
> are not even wrong.

Until you take it upon yourself to learn something about what you're
trying to argue against, you're not even interesting.

Cj

unread,
Oct 3, 2007, 5:01:15 PM10/3/07
to
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote

>horseshit snipped<

You are a waste of opposable thumbs.
Cj

John Harshman

unread,
Oct 3, 2007, 5:14:06 PM10/3/07
to
Greg Guarino wrote:

[snip backspace]

> It is not often that a poster displays the courtesy and helpful
> attitude that you have shown in this post. You have, of course, made
> the same silly argument that yoiu have been making for some time. But
> this time you have kindly provided us with an eloquent and
> comprehensible quote from Darwin that completely destroys your
> position, saving us the trouble of finding it ourselves.

There should be an award for this sort of behavior. I suggest that it be
named after Uranium Committee, the acknowledged world champion.

Kermit

unread,
Oct 3, 2007, 5:33:33 PM10/3/07
to
On Oct 3, 1:30 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 9:27 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > The scientists who work in the field know what is meant by "evolution" in the context of biology,
>
> Until you define for me what exactly is the "context of biology" you
> are not even wrong.

Is it your *intent to make Creationsists look stupid, or is it an
accidental by-product of playing out whatever emotional imperative
compels you?

>
> > carrying out research which has tested evolutionary theory rigorously
> > against the evidence for a century and a half.
>
> What theory? Where is your theory that explains how the software in
> the chimpanzee brain enabled it to transform into a human - you know
> that ape thing you people call a common ancestor , the one that wasn't
> an ape it only looked like an ape.

As so many others have done before you, you succeed in making clear
that your only conceptual weapon against evolutionary theory is to
mischaracterize it.

>
> Darwin:
> "....Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious
> choice in the animals which become modified; and it has even been
> urged that, as plants have no volition, natural selection is not
> applicable to them!
> In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection IS A
> FALSE TERM;...."

Concrete thinkers have trouble with metaphors, even when they are
warned about them, yes.

(Emphasis yours, BTW.)

>
> A volition is a choice or decision. Plants have no will or
> consciousness, notice the exclamation mark in the sentence. So did
> Darwin personify nature? No, since there is no such thing as a natural
> selection. Something which doesn't exist can't personify anything.

Which is why he took care to explain this to the simple minded. Not,
apparently, simply enough for you.

>
> If Darwin had said "Nature Selection force" his intent would have been
> clear and then he would have personified nature. Natural Selection is
> Darwin's term and only he knew what he intended with it.

Well, he and everyone who has read the book. Or any science book on
the subject. I read it in eighth grade; there aren't many important
science books accessible to kids with little math talent. It does
require that the reader be literate in whatever language it has been
translated into.

> He had no
> idea what a theory was, which is why nobody knows what is the
> difference between the Theory of Natural Selection and Natural
> Selection.

Is this the same nobody who cannot distinguish between pragmatics,
intent, and definition?

> ToNS was used 36 times. If you read these 36 passages he

> never actually gave any theory which is whyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection


> has no actual theory, just a bunch of appeals to abstract authority.

All those words you skipped when you were searching the text for this
phrase? *They explained his theory of evolution. Which, incidentally,
is now considerably out of date.

> Such as for example:"...Although fitness is sometimes colloquially
> understood as a quality that promotes survival of a particular
> individual - as illustrated in the well-known phrase survival of the
> fittest - modern evolutionary theory defines fitness in terms of
> individual reproduction...."

Yup, any English-literate person should be able to understand that.
Where do you imagine you see an appeal to authority?

>
> Modern evolutionary theory didn't define anything, only a human being
> could have defined fitness in terms of individual reproduction - who
> was this person?

Please cite the authority who has defined all of your words. Don't
fall into the Appeal to Authority fallacy, however.

Kermit

Vend

unread,
Oct 3, 2007, 6:29:46 PM10/3/07
to

I doubt that a cure for his illness can be dollarated.

Mark VandeWettering

unread,
Oct 3, 2007, 8:48:40 PM10/3/07
to
On 2007-10-03, backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Finally passages that come at least close to addressing the whole
> intent issue. Darwin talks about the objections to his term NS such as
> that it personifies nature.
>
>>No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of man's
>>selection; and in this case the individual differences given by nature,
>>which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur.
> Of course we don't object because the intent with man selection is
> conscious selection. In contrast nobody
> knows what you were trying to say.
>
>
>>Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the
>>animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as plants
>>have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!
>>In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection IS A FALSE TERM;
> No kidding hey!

Sigh. In the literal sense, it is false. It's like saying "sweet pickle"
or "affordable designer fashion". Of course, there are other ways that words
are used (e.g. not in the literal sense).

>>but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective affinities of the various elements?--and yet an acid >cannot
>>strictly be said to elect the base with which it in preference combines.
> Because the intent with the word "elect" is clear.

As is Darwin's use of the term "natural selection". After all, he's explaining
to you EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANS IN THE VERY STUFF YOU ARE QUOTING.

>>It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to an
>>author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the
>>planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical
>>expressions
> Darwin, you see http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com , Gitt information
> theory and Chomsky pragmatics came 150
> years to late. Since nobody knew what your intent was, Hitler, Stalin
> and Mussolini invented their own intent with natural selection.
> Mussolini used you and Spencer's term "survival of the fittest" over
> and over in his speeches as justification for war.

You've been arguing about Darwin's intent. Here he reinforces precisely
what everyone has been telling you, and exactly opposite what you have
claimed.

>>So again it is difficult to avoid personifying the word Nature...
> No, it isn't because you are the one using this term so you tell us
> your intent. If you had no idea what you were trying to say how am I
> supposed to know?

You could just try to read what he wrote. It's pretty obvious if you
aren't absolutely cretinous.

>> but I mean by nature, only the product of many natural laws, and by laws the
>> sequence of events as ascertained by us.
> If we don't ascertain the laws then who will? And what are these laws,
> these natural laws. You really had
> no idea what you were trying to say hey Darwin. You were just a feeble
> minded mathematically illiterate fool angry with God for loosing your
> child and in the process damned mankind - everybody from YEC to
> atheists now thinks they got naturaled.

Sigh.

Sadly, pathetically, not by everyone.

Mark

> ----------

Mark

backspace

unread,
Oct 4, 2007, 1:11:28 PM10/4/07
to
On Oct 3, 10:51 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > What theory? Where is your theory that explains how the software in
> > the chimpanzee brain enabled it to transform into a human - you know
> > that ape thing you people call a common ancestor , the one that wasn't
> > an ape it only looked like an ape.

> Parading your dogmatic ignorance doesn't prove anything other than
> that your are pathetic and stupid. It has been explained to you over
> and over again that the common ancestor of men and other apes was an
> ape.

I have a Youtube video of Carl Sagan on my PC where he said that we
didn't evolve from an ape but a "common ancestor". Lets face it
Richard you evolutionists have been caught out. What you should do is
now confess to everybody that you were a bunch of dishonest liers who
with deliberate intent deceived everybody because for you the truth
isn't absolute the materialist premises are. Why for example have
Cameron Smith a professor at Portland State not come an apologized to
us and state when will he pull his fallacious arguments about the
"monkeys" at http://www.toptenmyths.com ? The evolutionary community
credibility has been impaired over this common ancestor nonsense.

For example Harshman is still trying to confuse the issues. You ,
UraniumCommittee (UC) and probably Wilkins agrees that the the CA was
a flee scratching ape. But Prof. Smith and Harshman begs to differ.
Yet, all of you use the term natural selection. How can anybody
believe what you people are saying about natural selection if you
can't agree on such a simple thing as that the common ancestor is a
weasel term?

Inez

unread,
Oct 4, 2007, 1:26:12 PM10/4/07
to
On Oct 4, 10:11 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 10:51 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > What theory? Where is your theory that explains how the software in
> > > the chimpanzee brain enabled it to transform into a human - you know
> > > that ape thing you people call a common ancestor , the one that wasn't
> > > an ape it only looked like an ape.
> > Parading your dogmatic ignorance doesn't prove anything other than
> > that your are pathetic and stupid. It has been explained to you over
> > and over again that the common ancestor of men and other apes was an
> > ape.
>
> I have a Youtube video of Carl Sagan on my PC where he said that we
> didn't evolve from an ape but a "common ancestor".

Why do you feel "ape" and "common ancestor" are mutually exclusive?
Stupidity?

> Lets face it
> Richard you evolutionists have been caught out. What you should do is
> now confess to everybody that you were a bunch of dishonest liers who
> with deliberate intent deceived everybody because for you the truth
> isn't absolute the materialist premises are.

Of course, I see it all at last. Two people in the entire world don't
recite exactly the same wording of a definition, and it means all
evolutionists are liars. What is wrong with you anyway?

backspace

unread,
Oct 4, 2007, 1:29:36 PM10/4/07
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

"....Herbert Spencer introduced the term survival of the fittest,
which became a popular summary of the theory. Although the phrase is
still often used by non-biologists, modern biologists avoid it because
it is tautological if fittest is read to mean functionally superior
and is applied to individuals rather than considered as an averaged
quantity over populations....."

Who applied SoF to individuals rather than populations with what
intent. According to whom is SoF tautological?
In this thread
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c1902dbe5979d87f/bdab556847b77640#bdab556847b77640
we got five different intents with SoF ranging from "shorthand for
complex math" to "it is a tautology" , "it is not a tautology", to it
is "misleading" from Harshman, Wilkins, Colby and Darwin
communicating different intent with the same undefined phrase SoF

Where did the author of this paragraph on Wikipedia get his
interpretation from the passages below?

Darwin: "...I have called this principle, by which each slight
variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in
order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the
expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the
Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient. We
have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results,
and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation
of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature.
But Natural Selection, we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly
ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble
efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art...."

Darwin: "...Man can act only on external and visible characters:
Nature, if I may be allowed to personify the natural preservation or
survival of the fittest, cares nothing for appearances, except in so
far as they are useful to any being...."

Darwin: "...In cases of this kind, if the variation were of a
beneficial nature, the original form would soon be supplanted by the
modified form, through the survival of the fittest....."

Darwin: "..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....."

"....Science has not as yet proved the truth of this belief, whatever
the future may reveal. On our theory the continued existence of lowly
organisms offers no difficulty; for natural selection, or the survival
of the fittest, does not necessarily include progressive development--
it only takes advantage of such variations as arise and are beneficial
to each creature under its complex relations of life ...."

Darwin: "....This principle of preservation, or the survival of the
fittest, I have called natural selection. It leads to the improvement
of each creature in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions
of life; and consequently, in most cases, to what must be regarded as
an advance in organization. Nevertheless, low and simple forms will
long endure if well fitted for their simple conditions of life...."

Darwin: "...Further we must suppose that there is a power, represented
by natural selection or the survival of the fittest, always intently
watching each slight alteration in the transparent layers; and
carefully preserving each which, under varied circumstances, in any
way or degree, tends to produce a distincter image....

Darwin: "....If, then, animals and plants do vary, let it be ever so
slightly or slowly, why should not variations or individual
differences, which are in any way beneficial, be preserved and
accumulated through natural selection, or the survival of the fittest?
If man can by patience select variations useful to him, why, under
changing and complex conditions of life, should not variations useful
to nature's living products often arise, and be preserved or selected?
What limit can be put to this power, acting during long ages and
rigidly scrutinising the whole constitution, structure, and habits of
each creature, favouring the good and rejecting the bad? I can see no
limit to this power, in slowly and beautifully adapting each form to
the most complex relations of life....."

Iain

unread,
Oct 4, 2007, 2:25:21 PM10/4/07
to
On Oct 3, 7:57 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the
> >animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as plants
> >have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!
> >In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection IS A FALSE TERM;

Right, so Darwin is stating explicitly that his intention is not to
imply conscious choice.

Has this cleared your addledness?

~Iain

Greg Guarino

unread,
Oct 4, 2007, 2:43:42 PM10/4/07
to

Your posts on this thread are practically the definition of irony.

Your stated aim is to prove evolutionary theory so weakly defined as
to be "not even wrong". Yet, minus the minor distraction of your own
silly asides, the Darwin quotes you have provided add up to a nice
compact primer on the topic; Clear, concise, convincing. It's almost
like you're some sort of unwitting double agent.

Keep up the good work and we'll teach you the secret handshake. Hint:
start with an "unopposed" thumb.

Greg Guarino

John Harshman

unread,
Oct 4, 2007, 2:58:45 PM10/4/07
to
Iain wrote:

No. So far whenever anyone has pointed this out (at least three times)
he has either not replied at all or snipped out the observation.
Conscious dishonesty or unconscious defense mechanism? Hard to tell.

backspace

unread,
Oct 4, 2007, 3:12:54 PM10/4/07
to

No, because why did he then use the word "selection" for which the
synonym is "choice"? Darwin says he wishes not to personify nature
and then goes right ahead does exactly that by using a word not
available to him given his premises.
You can't deny your cake and then proceed to eat from it!

John Harshman

unread,
Oct 4, 2007, 3:42:36 PM10/4/07
to
backspace wrote:

This too has been explained to you many times. Metaphor/analogy is one
of the chief sources for new usages in all languages. When you have a
new concept to name you generally don't just make up a new word, you
adapt an old one that already has a similar concept attached to it. You
probably "dial" a telephone by punching buttons. Well, of course those
aren't really buttons, but little switches. Well, they're not really
switches, which only occur on railroad tracks. Well, those aren't really
tracks, which are lines of animal footprints. And so on. Analogy and
metaphor all the way, and without that most language would be a tedious
exercise in circumlocation.

Darwin explained his analogy very clearly. Most people are able to
adjust to this sort of thing easily. Creationists seem to have a lot of
trouble with figurative language, perhaps because they're used to taking
Genesis literally, except when they don't.

> You can't deny your cake and then proceed to eat from it!

See how you are capable of comprehending metaphors when you want to?
Please realize that all your wordplay is just a psychological defense
mechanism to keep you from understanding a concept that you think
threatens your religion.

Greg Guarino

unread,
Oct 4, 2007, 4:03:55 PM10/4/07
to
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:12:54 -0700, backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>No, because why did he then use the word "selection" for which the
>synonym is "choice"? Darwin says he wishes not to personify nature
>and then goes right ahead does exactly that by using a word not
>available to him given his premises.
>You can't deny your cake and then proceed to eat from it!

I know that John has already pounced on this one (dammit), but I can't
help noting that the Irony Festival continues.

Cake!

Simply brilliant. Thanks for the chuckle, again.

Greg Guarino

richardal...@googlemail.com

unread,
Oct 4, 2007, 4:56:23 PM10/4/07
to
On Oct 4, 6:11 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 10:51 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > What theory? Where is your theory that explains how the software in
> > > the chimpanzee brain enabled it to transform into a human - you know
> > > that ape thing you people call a common ancestor , the one that wasn't
> > > an ape it only looked like an ape.
> > Parading your dogmatic ignorance doesn't prove anything other than
> > that your are pathetic and stupid. It has been explained to you over
> > and over again that the common ancestor of men and other apes was an
> > ape.
>
> I have a Youtube video of Carl Sagan on my PC where he said that we
> didn't evolve from an ape but a "common ancestor".

That common ancestor was an ape.

And since when was Carl Sagan a taxonomist?

> Lets face it
> Richard you evolutionists have been caught out.

Caught out doing what? Telling people what the evidence shows about
human ancestry? How do you interpret the evidence?

> What you should do is
> now confess to everybody that you were a bunch of dishonest liers who
> with deliberate intent deceived everybody because for you the truth
> isn't absolute the materialist premises are.

There is no instance at all in which you or any other creationist has
been able to identify anything any "evolutionist" has written here as
a lie. Empty assertions don't count, and neither do deliberately
misunderstood references to youTube videos.

On the other hand, there are many instances which creationists have
been shown to be lying on this forum, let alone on their web sites.

> Why for example have
> Cameron Smith a professor at Portland State not come an apologized to
> us and state when will he pull his fallacious arguments about the

> "monkeys" athttp://www.toptenmyths.com? The evolutionary community


> credibility has been impaired over this common ancestor nonsense.

And what fallacious arguments are those?

>
> For example Harshman is still trying to confuse the issues. You ,
> UraniumCommittee (UC)

What the fuck is the value of this stupid pissant's opinion? He's not
an evolutionary scientist.

> and probably Wilkins agrees that the the CA was
> a flee scratching ape.

You mean an ape that runs away from scratching? I'd run away if
someone tried to scratch me.

Or to put it another way: if you are so freaking incoherent you can't
even write a sentence in English, why should anyone treat you as
anything other than an illeducated buffoon?

> But Prof. Smith and Harshman begs to differ.

Harshman has made it very plain that the common ancestor of man an
other apes was an ape. He's explained it to you in detail.

Why do you think that such a blatant lie advances your case?

> Yet, all of you use the term natural selection. How can anybody
> believe what you people are saying about natural selection if you
> can't agree on such a simple thing as that the common ancestor is a
> weasel term?

It isn't. It's a term whose meaning is perfectly clear, and has been
explained to you on a number of occasions. And the evidence for a
common ancestor of man and other apes is not based on natural
selection. Try learning about the subject.

RF

Iain

unread,
Oct 4, 2007, 6:43:26 PM10/4/07
to
On Oct 4, 8:12 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 8:25 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 3, 7:57 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the
> > > >animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as plants
> > > >have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!
> > > >In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection IS A FALSE TERM;
>
> > Right, so Darwin is stating explicitly that his intention is not to
> > imply conscious choice.
>
> > Has this cleared your addledness?
>
> No, because why did he then use the word "selection" for which the
> synonym is "choice"?

Because they are not perfect synonyms.

Choice is always conscious.
Selection is not always conscious.

A sieve, for example, selects, but does not choose.

~Iain

VoiceOfReason

unread,
Oct 4, 2007, 7:12:53 PM10/4/07
to

> Finally passages that come at least close to addressing the whole
> intent issue.

Biological evolution exists regardless of what Darwin's intents were.
However you choose to misrepresent or distort them is irrelevant.

<...>

William Wingstedt

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 1:45:55 AM10/5/07
to
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:57:20 -0700, backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Finally passages that come at least close to addressing the whole
>intent issue.

The intent was to describe natural mechanisms and how they present
themselves as evolution. There is no issue.

> Darwin talks about the objections to his term NS such as
>that it personifies nature.
>
>>No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of man's
>>selection; and in this case the individual differences given by nature,
>>which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur.

>Of course we don't object because the intent with man selection is
>conscious selection. In contrast nobody
>knows what you were trying to say.

Human selection of a trait is not necessarily the result of a
conscious deliberation and may be inadvertent. Those that are
consciously chosen represent features that originally arose through
the operation of natural mechanisms, making them available for the
choosing.

>
>
>>Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the
>>animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as plants
>>have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!
>>In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection IS A FALSE TERM;

>No kidding hey!


>
>>but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective affinities of the various elements?--and yet an acid cannot
>>strictly be said to elect the base with which it in preference combines.

>Because the intent with the word "elect" is clear.

While your interpretation of whatever intent there may be is much less
so.

>
>>It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to an
>>author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the
>>planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical
>>expressions
>Darwin, you see http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com , Gitt information
>theory and Chomsky pragmatics came 150
>years to late. Since nobody knew what your intent was, Hitler, Stalin
>and Mussolini invented their own intent with natural selection.
>Mussolini used you and Spencer's term "survival of the fittest" over
>and over in his speeches as justification for war.

You've gone over the edge.

>
>>So again it is difficult to avoid personifying the word Nature...

>No, it isn't because you are the one using this term so you tell us
>your intent.

I'm told he wrote an entire book doing just that. You might have
someone read it to you.

> If you had no idea what you were trying to say how am I
>supposed to know?

The supposition of you knowing anything is not one which I would enter
into lightly.

>
>> but I mean by nature, only the product of many natural laws, and by laws the
>> sequence of events as ascertained by us.

>If we don't ascertain the laws then who will?

Doesn't matter. They will continue on, even as they are unascertained.

>And what are these laws,
>these natural laws. You really had
>no idea what you were trying to say hey Darwin. You were just a feeble
>minded mathematically illiterate fool angry with God for loosing your
>child and in the process damned mankind - everybody from YEC to
>atheists now thinks they got naturaled.

So, you went over the edge and managed to grab hold of a branch, which
has now given way and you are in free fall.

>
>> With a little familiarity such superficial objections will be forgotten.

>Yes, Darwin they were forgotten for 150 years because nobody
>understood that you didn't communicate any form of intent with this
>piece of grammatical gargoyle - natural selection.

So now, after having remarked how clear the intent was, you claim to
be the first to understand that Darwin didn't communicate any form of
intent. Which is it?

>This universal
>mechanism of yours that explains everything.

Ta Da! Splat...

>-----
>
>Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term Natural
>Selection. Some have even imagined that natural selection induces

>variability, whereas it implies only the preservation of such
>variations as


>arise and are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life.
>
>No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of
>man's
>selection; and in this case the individual differences given by
>nature,
>which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur.
>

>Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice
>in the
>animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as
>plants
>have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!
>

>In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a
>false term; but
>who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective affinities of
>the
>various elements?--and yet an acid cannot strictly be said to elect
>the
>base with which it in preference combines.
>
>It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power
>or Deity; but who objects to an
>author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements
>of the
>planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by such
>metaphorical
>expressions; and they are almost necessary for brevity. So again it
>is
>difficult to avoid personifying the word Nature; but I mean by nature,
>only
>the aggregate action and product of many natural laws, and by laws the
>sequence of events as ascertained by us. With a little familiarity
>such
>superficial objections will be forgotten.

>----------
>

backspace

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 2:44:58 AM10/5/07
to
On Oct 5, 12:43 am, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Has this cleared your addledness?
> > No, because why did he then use the word "selection" for which the
> > synonym is "choice"?

> Because they are not perfect synonyms.

> Choice is always conscious.
> Selection is not always conscious.

Your *semantics* or meaning (note meaning not intent) or definition of
the word *selection* differs from mine, this is where the confusion
is. According to http://www.dictionary.com *selection* and *choice*
are synonyms. But something is a synonym if it implies the same thing.
Would you care to motivate why you differ from dictionary.com? Saying
that *selection* or *choice* always implies consciousness is an
axiomatic statement. I can't prove that 1+1=2 I simply believe it.
What I can't understand is why do the materialists insist on using a
word such as *choice* or *selection* if it simply is not available to
them.

> A sieve, for example, selects, but does not choose.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com explained that the roots of a river
"sieving" the cayakers or the waves *sorting* the sand didn't have any
intent - there is no encoding and decoding mechanism. There is no
motive or will from the waves to sort the sand. Sorting of the sand is
a pattern not a design. The meaning of the word "sieve" is dependent
on the intent of signal sender communicating his motive, will or
intent to signal receiver or the decoding mechanism. We for example
are not using the same protocol in communicating our intent with the
word *selection*, *preservation*, *sorting* and *sieve*.
If signal receiver and signal sender don't agree on the meaning of the
word selection then decoding the will of the sender isn't possible.
Darwin didn't define what he meant(semantics) with the word
*selection*. If *selection* can both imply consciousness and
unconsciousness then we need to rectify this ambiguity by defining
exactly what we mean(semantics) with selection or we need to invent a
new word. Prof. Herrmann invented "mindom* instead of *random* since
*random* implies purposelessness and there 'purposeless' about the
complex behavior of a gas.

Harshman said Darwin used *selection* as a metaphor - metaphor for
what? Newton didn't have to use metaphors he gave as an equation. The
evolutionists are interpreting what Darwin wrote according to their
own metaphysical world view, such as with "Survival of the Fittest".
We have endless discussions about what does SoF really mean. And it
means nothing without knowing what was Spencer's intent with it -
until we know his intent he wasn't even wrong. Darwin said that SoF is
a "better expression" then natural selection. What casual link was
there between the word "survival" and the word "selection" before
1859? Why was there suddenly in 1859 be some sort of relation.

richardal...@googlemail.com

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 3:00:44 AM10/5/07
to
On Oct 5, 7:44 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 12:43 am, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Has this cleared your addledness?
> > > No, because why did he then use the word "selection" for which the
> > > synonym is "choice"?
> > Because they are not perfect synonyms.
> > Choice is always conscious.
> > Selection is not always conscious.
>
> Your *semantics* or meaning (note meaning not intent) or definition of
> the word *selection* differs from mine, this is where the confusion
> is.

There is no confusion over the meaning of the term, only your
transparently dishonest obfustication.

If you had any genuine interest in the meanings of words or science,
you would still be dogmatically repeating these utterly discredited
assertions.

But then you have no interest whatsoever in learning anything, as
education would undermine your conviction.

In any case, even if the terms used by Darwin were utterly
inappropriate (which they are not), and the language used by
scientists ever since confused (which is is not), it will not alter
the simple fact that the overwhelming weight of evidence shows clearly
and categorically that the earth is four and half billion years old,
that life originated on earth three and a half billion years ago, and
that the evidence shows common ancestry for all living organisms.

By all means persist in this stupid and meaningless argument if you
want, but all you are doing is making yourself look dogmatically
ignorant and utterly dishonest. That's fine with me, as I enjoy it
when creationist make such fools of themselves, but I fail to see how
this advances your cause in any way.

RF

<snipped>

backspace

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 4:55:31 AM10/5/07
to
On Oct 5, 9:00 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > Your *semantics* or meaning (note meaning not intent) or definition of
> > the word *selection* differs from mine, this is where the confusion
> > is.

> There is no confusion over the meaning of the term, only your
> transparently dishonest obfustication.

*selection* is a word not a term.

> If you had any genuine interest in the meanings of words or science,
> you would still be dogmatically repeating these utterly discredited
> assertions.

All I am asking is for semantics(meaning) with the word *selection*
and its synonym choice. I for example still don't
know wether you agree with dictionary.com that *choice* is a synonym
for *selection*.

> In any case, even if the terms used by Darwin were utterly
> inappropriate (which they are not), and the language used by
> scientists ever since confused (which is is not), it will not alter
> the simple fact that the overwhelming weight of evidence shows clearly
> and categorically that the earth is four and half billion years old,
> that life originated on earth three and a half billion years ago, and
> that the evidence shows common ancestry for all living organisms.

As I have posted even if the fossils did show a slow and gradual
transformation of one species into another it still
won't explain the mechanism and interdependence relationship between
the software and hardware(muscles).
And please stop this common ancestor nonsense - your intent is the
transformation of a banana tree into a monkey into a human. You should
make your intent clear and not hide behind weasel words.


wf3h

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 5:13:40 AM10/5/07
to
On Oct 5, 1:44 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.cosmicfingerprints.comexplained that the roots of a river

> "sieving" the cayakers or the waves *sorting* the sand didn't have any
> intent - there is no encoding and decoding mechanism.

sure there is. the encoding is built into the selection method. the
very act of sorting by physical means is encoded into the sorting
mechanism.

There is no
> motive or will from the waves to sort the sand.

irrelevant.

> Darwin didn't define what he meant(semantics) with the word
> *selection*. If *selection* can both imply consciousness and
> unconsciousness then we need to rectify this ambiguity by defining
> exactly what we mean(semantics) with selection or we need to invent a
> new word. Prof. Herrmann invented "mindom* instead of *random* since
> *random* implies purposelessness and there 'purposeless' about the
> complex behavior of a gas.

languague is inherently ambiguous. look at the term 'god'. i KNOW
you're shrieking hysterically right now, being hoist on your own
petard at linking 'god' and semantics, but it can be done. and few
concepts are more undefined or ambiguous than 'god'.

before attacking science, why not look at the 'intent' of 'god'.?

>
> Harshman said Darwin used *selection* as a metaphor - metaphor for
> what? Newton didn't have to use metaphors he gave as an equation. The
> evolutionists are interpreting what Darwin wrote according to their
> own metaphysical world view, such as with "Survival of the Fittest".

there is no 'metaphysical' worldview of evolutionists. your argument
is circular. you're trying to prove there IS such a view and you take
its existence as the premise for the argument you're trying to make

creationist....

you wanna scare the bejesus out this creationist?

apply his argument to god.

wf3h

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 5:17:30 AM10/5/07
to
On Oct 5, 3:55 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> .
>
> As I have posted even if the fossils did show a slow and gradual
> transformation of one species into another it still
> won't explain the mechanism and interdependence relationship between
> the software and hardware(muscles).
> And please stop this common ancestor nonsense - your intent is the
> transformation of a banana tree into a monkey into a human. You should
> make your intent clear and not hide behind weasel words.

nor does the existence of atoms imply that we know how molecules form.
to understand that, we need to know the laws of chemistry.

your argument is that science is impossible because while we can SEE
events in nature we can never explain relationships that cause change.

IOW there are no laws of nature.

yes...that's a familiar argument creationists make. to them, we should
return to the 4th century when magic was how we explained how nature
works.


richardal...@googlemail.com

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 5:58:00 AM10/5/07
to
On Oct 5, 9:55 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 9:00 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > Your *semantics* or meaning (note meaning not intent) or definition of
> > > the word *selection* differs from mine, this is where the confusion
> > > is.
> > There is no confusion over the meaning of the term, only your
> > transparently dishonest obfustication.
>
> *selection* is a word not a term.
>
> > If you had any genuine interest in the meanings of words or science,
> > you would still be dogmatically repeating these utterly discredited
> > assertions.
>
> All I am asking is for semantics(meaning) with the word *selection*
> and its synonym choice.

Darwin provided it.
Everyone understands it.


>I for example still don't
> know wether you agree with dictionary.com that *choice* is a synonym
> for *selection*.

What you know or don't know is irrelevant: you refuse to learn.

>
> > In any case, even if the terms used by Darwin were utterly
> > inappropriate (which they are not), and the language used by
> > scientists ever since confused (which is is not), it will not alter
> > the simple fact that the overwhelming weight of evidence shows clearly
> > and categorically that the earth is four and half billion years old,
> > that life originated on earth three and a half billion years ago, and
> > that the evidence shows common ancestry for all living organisms.
>
> As I have posted even if the fossils did show a slow and gradual
> transformation of one species into another it still
> won't explain the mechanism and interdependence relationship between
> the software and hardware(muscles).

Well bully for you.
If you want to know, educate yourself in the subject.
It's not the job of others to educate you.

> And please stop this common ancestor nonsense - your intent is the
> transformation of a banana tree into a monkey into a human. You should
> make your intent clear and not hide behind weasel words.

There are no "weasel words" here other than yours. The meaning of
"common ancestor" is perfectly clear to anyone who has any desire to
learn. That you refuse to learn is your problem, not one for
evolutionary biologists.

RF

backspace

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 10:58:07 AM10/5/07
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_selection#Clarification_needed

"...It is trying to say that since fitness is a probabilistic quantity
(like life expectancy) a mutation could increase an individual's
fitness and still not increase its actual reproductive success..."

>From the quotes I gave on fitness where did the author get
"reproductive success" and "probabilistic quantity" from?
It is obvious that he has invented his own intent with fitness, why
should we even bother with his intent if there are thousands of
different other intents with "fitness"?

I also note that "Theory of natural selection" no longer redirects to
Natural selection on Wikipedia and that argument from authority
article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact has
had its link removed from the natural selection Wikipedia article.
Read the article to see what evolutionists thinks of everybody's
intelligence - they view people as a bunch of morons that one can
patronize with arrogance and condescension
with statements like the following:
Gravity is a "fact". Evolution is a "fact"

Who do evolutionists think you are talking to?

Greg Guarino

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 11:17:45 AM10/5/07
to
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 01:55:31 -0700, backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:


>> If you had any genuine interest in the meanings of words or science,
>> you would still be dogmatically repeating these utterly discredited
>> assertions.
>All I am asking is for semantics(meaning) with the word *selection*
>and its synonym choice. I for example still don't
>know wether you agree with dictionary.com that *choice* is a synonym
>for *selection*.

Did you miss number 4 below?
-----------------------------------
From Dictionary.com:

se·lec·tion /s??l?k??n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[si-lek-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an act or instance of selecting or the state of being
selected; choice.
2. a thing or a number of things selected.
3. an aggregate of things displayed for choice, purchase, use,
etc.; a group from which a choice may be made: The store had a wide
selection of bracelets.
4. Biology. any natural or artificial process that results in
differential reproduction among the members of a population so that
the inheritable traits of only certain individuals are passed on, or
are passed on in greater proportion, to succeeding generations.
Compare natural selection, sexual selection, kin selection, artificial
selection.
----------------------------------

Yes, I agree with Dictionary.com. Thanks for the link. You are
becoming a reliable source of entertainment.

>> In any case, even if the terms used by Darwin were utterly
>> inappropriate (which they are not), and the language used by
>> scientists ever since confused (which is is not), it will not alter
>> the simple fact that the overwhelming weight of evidence shows clearly
>> and categorically that the earth is four and half billion years old,
>> that life originated on earth three and a half billion years ago, and
>> that the evidence shows common ancestry for all living organisms.
>
>As I have posted even if the fossils did show a slow and gradual
>transformation of one species into another it still
>won't explain the mechanism and interdependence relationship between
>the software and hardware(muscles).

Sure it can, if your twisted description has any meaning. In short, if
a heritable trait provides an advantage, it can be selected for.

>And please stop this common ancestor nonsense - your intent is the

>transformation of a banana tree into a monkey into a human.You should


>make your intent clear and not hide behind weasel words.

Nope. Our common ancestor with a banana tree was a single-celled
organism. There's no straight line between the banana tree and us. Our
common ancestor with monkeys was some sort of primate, but no modern
monkey.

You keep confusing the "family" relationships. I am not descended from
my second cousin Anthony. Our common ancestor was one set of
great-grandparents. I am not descended from my 10th cousins, whoever
they might be. My common ancestor with them would have been a set of
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents. In
the language of many of those ancestors, capisce? (Get it?)

Likewise, if I go to the zoo, none of the living chimps, monkeys or
baboons are my ancestors. We share common ancestors with all of them,
but those species are now extinct. Would they have been "primates"
(the most recent common ancestors, anyway)? Of course.

Greg Guarino

Kermit

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 12:18:31 PM10/5/07
to
On Oct 5, 7:58 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_selection#Clarification_needed
>
> "...It is trying to say that since fitness is a probabilistic quantity
> (like life expectancy) a mutation could increase an individual's
> fitness and still not increase its actual reproductive success..."

How could that happen? Can you give an example? Do you understand the
issue? Do you understand how a human could be stronger, for instance,
and not be more successful reproductively?

>
>From the quotes I gave on fitness where did the author get
> "reproductive success" and "probabilistic quantity" from?

The English language. You see, if you follow the rules of grammar, you
can recombine words into entirely new sentences! Try it, why dontcha?

> It is obvious that he has invented his own intent with fitness, why
> should we even bother with his intent if there are thousands of
> different other intents with "fitness"?

No, he didn't invent an intent. I'm not sure what that means.

By combining those words, in the *context of his book, he created a
new *idea. Why should anyone give serious consideration to someone who
does not understand the difference between idea, intent, and meaning?

>
> I also note that "Theory of natural selection" no longer redirects to
> Natural selection on Wikipedia and that argument from authority
> articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_facthas
> had its link removed from the natural selection Wikipedia article.
> Read the article to see what evolutionists thinks of everybody's
> intelligence - they view people as a bunch of morons that one can
> patronize with arrogance and condescension
> with statements like the following:
> Gravity is a "fact". Evolution is a "fact"
>

Yes. And the theories are the models that explain them.

> Who do evolutionists think you are talking to?

Idiots, of course. It's just difficult to post slowly and simply
enough for some people.

Kermit

backspace

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 12:20:59 PM10/5/07
to
On Oct 5, 5:17 pm, Greg Guarino <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
> 4. Biology. any natural or artificial process that results in
> differential reproduction among the members of a population so that
> the inheritable traits of only certain individuals are passed on, or
> are passed on in greater proportion, to succeeding generations.
> Compare natural selection, sexual selection, kin selection, artificial
> selection.
> ----------------------------------

Lets rephrase:

A population reproduces passing on their traits to succeeding
generations....

What has this got to do with anybody making a choice? Lets presume
there were only animals and no humans on earth, so there wouldn't even
exist such a word as selection. The only possible way that there could
be animals is if they reproduce. Why are the evolutionists telling us
this obvious observation: Animals reproduce. What about the
reproduction ? You are like mentally ill people saying over and over
that the sun shines. Of course it shines, but telling us that it
shines doesn't explain nuclear fusion. And telling me that animals
reproduce doesn't explain the encoding decoding mechanism responsible
for this reproduction.

richardal...@googlemail.com

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 12:55:25 PM10/5/07
to

Who do you think you are fooling with this pathetic argument.
Have you even read the post to which you are responding?
If so, perhaps you can explain why you are ignoring most of it, and
dishonestly pretending that you arguments have not be addressed.

What does it tell us about you and your cause if you cannot promote it
without such systematic dishonesty?

RF

Greg Guarino

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 12:57:17 PM10/5/07
to
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:20:59 -0700, backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Oct 5, 5:17 pm, Greg Guarino <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
>> 4. Biology. any natural or artificial process that results in
>> differential reproduction among the members of a population so that
>> the inheritable traits of only certain individuals are passed on, or
>> are passed on in greater proportion, to succeeding generations.
>> Compare natural selection, sexual selection, kin selection, artificial
>> selection.
>> ----------------------------------
>
>Lets rephrase:

Let's not. Everyone, now including Dictionary.com, agrees that
"selection" can refer to a non-conscious process, specifically
including Natural Selection, except you.

>A population reproduces passing on their traits to succeeding
>generations....

Nope. You left out the important parts, which is your usual tactic,
and a pathetically weak one at that.

What YOUR SOURCE, Dictionary.com says is this:

"any natural or artificial process that results in
differential reproduction among the members of a population so that
the inheritable traits of only certain individuals are passed on, or
are passed on in greater proportion, to succeeding generations."

The "population" doesn't pass on its traits undifferentiated, as your
distortion (you call it "rephrasing") suggests. INDIVIDUALS pass on
their traits, and not in the same numbers. Some don't pass theirs on
at all, i.e., they don't reproduce. Among those that do, some
reproduce more than others. The traits that help organisms reproduce
the most tend to get passed on the most.

>Animals reproduce. What about the
>reproduction ? You are like mentally ill people saying over and over
>that the sun shines. Of course it shines, but telling us that it
>shines doesn't explain nuclear fusion. And telling me that animals
>reproduce doesn't explain the encoding decoding mechanism responsible
>for this reproduction.

You pretend that if you edit a quote, or refuse to read a book, or
stopper your ears up and sing "la-la-la" the words you are so afraid
of actually disappear. They don't. The rest of us can see them just
fine.

Greg Guarino

John Harshman

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 1:03:41 PM10/5/07
to
backspace wrote:

> On Oct 5, 5:17 pm, Greg Guarino <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
>
>>4. Biology. any natural or artificial process that results in
>>differential reproduction among the members of a population so that
>>the inheritable traits of only certain individuals are passed on, or
>>are passed on in greater proportion, to succeeding generations.
>>Compare natural selection, sexual selection, kin selection, artificial
>>selection.
>>----------------------------------
>
>
> Lets rephrase:
>
> A population reproduces passing on their traits to succeeding
> generations....

As usual when you rephrase, most of the meaning is lost.

> What has this got to do with anybody making a choice?

Nothing. That's why the dictionary lists several meanings for the word
"selection". Not all of them involve "anybody making a choice".

> Lets presume
> there were only animals and no humans on earth, so there wouldn't even
> exist such a word as selection.

Why would that change any facts? The world is as it is regardless of
whether we have words for it, or what those words are.

> The only possible way that there could
> be animals is if they reproduce. Why are the evolutionists telling us
> this obvious observation: Animals reproduce. What about the
> reproduction ?

Like the dictionary says, "...differential reproduction among the


members of a population so that the inheritable traits of only certain
individuals are passed on, or are passed on in greater proportion, to

succeeding generations". This is not just reproduction. It's
differential reproduction relating to phenotype/genotype.

> You are like mentally ill people saying over and over
> that the sun shines. Of course it shines, but telling us that it
> shines doesn't explain nuclear fusion. And telling me that animals
> reproduce doesn't explain the encoding decoding mechanism responsible
> for this reproduction.

Indeed it doesn't. But natural selection is much more than "animals
reproduce". Until you can understand the simplest features of what you
claim to be arguing against, you're not even wrong.

Cj

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 2:30:32 PM10/5/07
to
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote
>snip<

> Read the article to see what evolutionists thinks of everybody's
> intelligence - they view people as a bunch of morons that one can
> patronize with arrogance and condescension
> with statements like the following:
> Gravity is a "fact". Evolution is a "fact"
>
> Who do evolutionists think you are talking to?

Very ignorant people.
Cj

steve...@hotmail.com

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 2:49:47 PM10/5/07
to
On Oct 3, 5:01 pm, "Cj" <cw...@gwi.net> wrote:
> "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >horseshit snipped<
>
> You are a waste of opposable thumbs.
> Cj

sig'ed

steve...@hotmail.com

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 3:03:24 PM10/5/07
to

>
> I also note that "Theory of natural selection" no longer redirects to
> Natural selection on Wikipedia and that argument from authority
> articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_facthas
> had its link removed from the natural selection Wikipedia article.
> Read the article to see what evolutionists thinks of everybody's
> intelligence - they view people as a bunch of morons that one can
> patronize with arrogance and condescension
> with statements like the following:
> Gravity is a "fact". Evolution is a "fact"

Gotcha. Arguments on wikipedia are proof that evolution doesn't
happen. I'll remember that next time I need something to laugh at.

> Who do evolutionists think you are talking to?

People who distort arguments, make up nonsensical words, fight straw
men, change definitions in order to confuse the point, and repost the
same nonsense after it has been answered again and again. But that
might just be me.


backspace

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 3:02:23 PM10/5/07
to
On Oct 5, 6:57 pm, Greg Guarino <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 5, 5:17 pm, Greg Guarino <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
> >> 4. Biology. any natural or artificial process that results in
> >> differential reproduction among the members of a population so that
> >> the inheritable traits of only certain individuals are passed on, or
> >> are passed on in greater proportion, to succeeding generations.
> >> Compare natural selection, sexual selection, kin selection, artificial
> >> selection.
> >Lets rephrase:

> Let's not. Everyone, now including Dictionary.com, agrees that
> "selection" can refer to a non-conscious process,

There is no casual link between "reproduction" and "selection."

> specifically
> including Natural Selection, except you.

You are begging the question, NS is the term under dispute.

> "any natural or artificial process that results in
> differential reproduction among the members of a population so that
> the inheritable traits of only certain individuals are passed on, or
> are passed on in greater proportion, to succeeding generations."

> The "population" doesn't pass on its traits undifferentiated, as your
> distortion (you call it "rephrasing") suggests. INDIVIDUALS pass on
> their traits, and not in the same numbers.

Which has got what to do with anybody making choices? When we say
populations pass on their traits our intent is obviously that
individuals passed on these traits and we collectively refer to these
individuals as a population. Intent sir, alway look for the will,
motive and intent that signal sender is trying to communicate to
signal receiver.

> Some don't pass theirs on at all, i.e., they don't reproduce.

If they don't pass on their traits then obviously they didn't
reproduce - how does this explain how a blob of yellow and white gel
turns into a chicken?

> Among those that do, some reproduce more than others. The traits that help organisms reproduce
> the most tend to get passed on the most.

This is a tautology. Obviously the traits that result in more
reproduction will come to dominate the species. How does this explain
how an eagle got its patriot missile like tracking ability to take
down a bird in mid flight.


backspace

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 3:08:40 PM10/5/07
to
On Oct 5, 7:03 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>

wrote:
> >>4. Biology. any natural or artificial process that results in
> >>differential reproduction among the members of a population so that
> >>the inheritable traits of only certain individuals are passed on, or
> >>are passed on in greater proportion, to succeeding generations.
> >>Compare natural selection, sexual selection, kin selection, artificial
> >>selection.

> Like the dictionary says, "...differential reproduction among the


> members of a population so that the inheritable traits of only certain
> individuals are passed on, or are passed on in greater proportion, to
> succeeding generations".

> This is not just reproduction. It's differential reproduction relating to phenotype/genotype.

And the common ancestor between man and ape wasn't an ape but a
"common ancestor". Your sentence is the same sort of weasel words as
the common ancestor nonsense. Differential means non-similar or not
the same which is a red herring since reproduction took place wether
the offspring are carbon copies or not is irrelevant to the question
as to what this has got to do with anything making a "choice".


> But natural selection is much more than "animals reproduce".

Sentence has no intent.


John Harshman

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 3:16:34 PM10/5/07
to
backspace wrote:

> On Oct 5, 6:57 pm, Greg Guarino <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:

[snip most of the nonsense]

>>Among those that do, some reproduce more than others. The traits that help organisms reproduce
>>the most tend to get passed on the most.
>
> This is a tautology.

If so, then if must be true. How can you say both that it's a tautology
and this it isn't true?

> Obviously the traits that result in more
> reproduction will come to dominate the species. How does this explain
> how an eagle got its patriot missile like tracking ability to take
> down a bird in mid flight.

Well, first you should know that eagles have no such ability. Eagles
don't generally attack birds in flight except to steal fish from them,
in which case they aren't taking down the bird, are they? Perhaps you
mean falcons or accipiters?

And yes, natural selection does explain this ability. The ancestors of
the falcon clearly had some sort of tracking ability. All predators need
soemthing of the sort. So as falcons began attacking birds in flight,
those that happened to possess better tracking abilities were more
successful and better able to reproduce. Thus tracking abilities
improved over time. Why is this a problem?

I hope they're better than Patriot missiles, by the way. They fail to
bring down the target more often than not.

John Harshman

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 3:22:43 PM10/5/07
to
backspace wrote:

> On Oct 5, 7:03 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>>4. Biology. any natural or artificial process that results in
>>>>differential reproduction among the members of a population so that
>>>>the inheritable traits of only certain individuals are passed on, or
>>>>are passed on in greater proportion, to succeeding generations.
>>>>Compare natural selection, sexual selection, kin selection, artificial
>>>>selection.
>
>
>>Like the dictionary says, "...differential reproduction among the
>>members of a population so that the inheritable traits of only certain
>>individuals are passed on, or are passed on in greater proportion, to
>>succeeding generations".
>
>
>> This is not just reproduction. It's differential reproduction
>> relating to phenotype/genotype.
>
> And the common ancestor between man and ape wasn't an ape but a
> "common ancestor".

No, it was an ape. What makes you think it wasn't? It was also an
ancestor. Some apes are ancestors.

> Your sentence is the same sort of weasel words as
> the common ancestor nonsense. Differential means non-similar or not
> the same which is a red herring since reproduction took place wether
> the offspring are carbon copies or not is irrelevant to the question
> as to what this has got to do with anything making a "choice".

That was a bit of non-sequiturish gibberish. The "differential" refers
not to the comparison between parents and offspring, but between the
reproductive success (number of surviving offspring) expected for
different phenotypes/genotypes. Some varieties are more successful than
others at reproducing. It has nothing to do with making a choice, as I
explained in the parts you cut out.

Are you psychologically capable of reading things you don't like?

>>But natural selection is much more than "animals reproduce".
>
> Sentence has no intent.

Sure it does. My intent was to explain that your "rephrasing" was just
plain wrong. You left out everything that makes natural selection
different from just "animals reproduce". If you are not dishonest, you
have a serious psychological problem of a different sort.

Greg Guarino

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 3:38:08 PM10/5/07
to
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 12:02:23 -0700, backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Among those that do, some reproduce more than others. The traits that help organisms reproduce
>> the most tend to get passed on the most.
>
>This is a tautology.

You confuse "tautology" with "the unavoidable consequence of the rules
of the process". Were the system different, the outcome could be
different as well.

>Obviously the traits that result in more
>reproduction will come to dominate the species.

<confetti drop> <party horns><brass band>

Having managed to cram one simple concept bewteen the bricks of the
the impenetrable Backspace Fortress of Ignorance, I claim my prize.
There IS a prize, isn;t there? There must be, or else, what the hell
have we all been doing?

>How does this explain
>how an eagle got its patriot missile like tracking ability to take
>down a bird in mid flight.

Right. Back to business.

You snipped that bit from my previous post. If a heritable trait


provides an advantage, it can be selected for.

Eagles evolved from other birds, so many of the skills needed for that
activity (flying, balance, eyesight) were already there. Suppose some
birds of an ancestor species started to occupy a niche where there was
too little game on the ground, or lots of it in the air. Suppose some
of them had a trait, perhaps the result of a mutation, that made them
slightly better avian hunters. They'd be less likely to starve, more
healthy and thus likely to attract the attention of females, better
able to feed their chicks. Fewer of them would starve and thus... how
did you put it?

>Obviously the traits that result in more
>reproduction will come to dominate the species.

Right. Natural Selection.

Greg Guarino

backspace

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 4:28:58 PM10/5/07
to
On Oct 5, 9:22 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

> > Your sentence is the same sort of weasel words as
> > the common ancestor nonsense. Differential means non-similar or not
> > the same which is a red herring since reproduction took place wether
> > the offspring are carbon copies or not is irrelevant to the question
> > as to what this has got to do with anything making a "choice".

> That was a bit of non-sequiturish gibberish. The "differential" refers
> not to the comparison between parents and offspring, but between the
> reproductive success (number of surviving offspring) expected for
> different phenotypes/genotypes.

O please - reproductive success. What is the intent with "success". I
have asked you 10 times and you refuse to answer. The success issue
was discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reproductive_success.
"...Differential reproductive success...." is weasel words. The
animals reproduces - this is our observation. Before 1859 nobody
associated this observation with anything getting naturaled , selected
or "choices" being made by nature. Choices were though made by man
yes, but nothing got artificialed in this process, it was Darwin who
decreed in 1859 that from now on anybody breeding for a certain dog
trait is "artficialing" dogs. What on earth was his intent with this.
Artificial as opposed to what now the nature selection force?

The word "differential" is superfluous and why would some form of a
"success" be "expected" for different gene types.
Who did the expecting, what is the intent with "expected" ,
"differential" and "success" ?

> Some varieties are more successful than
> others at reproducing. It has nothing to do with making a choice, as I
> explained in the parts you cut out.

Depends on your intent with "success". Why would we even want to drag
this word into the discussion because it too implies consciousness,
which is perhaps the reason it used as some form of subtle mind
control.

Bob T.

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 5:07:32 PM10/5/07
to
On Oct 5, 1:28 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 9:22 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > Your sentence is the same sort of weasel words as
> > > the common ancestor nonsense. Differential means non-similar or not
> > > the same which is a red herring since reproduction took place wether
> > > the offspring are carbon copies or not is irrelevant to the question
> > > as to what this has got to do with anything making a "choice".
> > That was a bit of non-sequiturish gibberish. The "differential" refers
> > not to the comparison between parents and offspring, but between the
> > reproductive success (number of surviving offspring) expected for
> > different phenotypes/genotypes.
>
> O please - reproductive success. What is the intent with "success". I
> have asked you 10 times and you refuse to answer. The success issue
> was discussed herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reproductive_success.

> "...Differential reproductive success...." is weasel words. The
> animals reproduces - this is our observation. Before 1859 nobody
> associated this observation with anything getting naturaled , selected
> or "choices" being made by nature. Choices were though made by man
> yes, but nothing got artificialed in this process, it was Darwin who
> decreed in 1859 that from now on anybody breeding for a certain dog
> trait is "artficialing" dogs. What on earth was his intent with this.
> Artificial as opposed to what now the nature selection force?
>
> The word "differential" is superfluous and why would some form of a
> "success" be "expected" for different gene types.

To take an oft-used example, some animals run faster than others,
based on their genes. The faster animals can expect to have a better
survival rate (hence, "success") than the slower animals. They
survive longer, they produce more offspring. Their genes spread
through the gene pool at a greater rate than the genes of the slower
animals.

> Who did the expecting, what is the intent with "expected" , "differential" and "success" ?

Only an idiot would ask this question. When your mother was
expecting, I am sure she expected a more successful offspring than the
one she got.


>
> > Some varieties are more successful than
> > others at reproducing. It has nothing to do with making a choice, as I
> > explained in the parts you cut out.
>
> Depends on your intent with "success". Why would we even want to drag
> this word into the discussion because it too implies consciousness,
> which is perhaps the reason it used as some form of subtle mind
> control.

Why do you persist in being so stupid? Until you stop refusing to
learn, you will always be wrong, and your mother will continue to be
disappointed.

- Bob T.


John Harshman

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 5:51:15 PM10/5/07
to
backspace wrote:

> On Oct 5, 9:22 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>Your sentence is the same sort of weasel words as
>>>the common ancestor nonsense. Differential means non-similar or not
>>>the same which is a red herring since reproduction took place wether
>>>the offspring are carbon copies or not is irrelevant to the question
>>>as to what this has got to do with anything making a "choice".
>
>
>>That was a bit of non-sequiturish gibberish. The "differential" refers
>>not to the comparison between parents and offspring, but between the
>>reproductive success (number of surviving offspring) expected for
>>different phenotypes/genotypes.
>
> O please - reproductive success. What is the intent with "success". I
> have asked you 10 times and you refuse to answer.

I have answered many times. You never appear to read it. Reproductive
success is just the number of offspring you have that survive to breed.

> The success issue
> was discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reproductive_success.
> "...Differential reproductive success...." is weasel words. The
> animals reproduces - this is our observation.

Our observation is that some animals reproduce more than others, and
that some of the difference in amount of reproduction (reproductive
success) is correlated with differences in the characteristics of the
animals. (Or plants, or protists, or bacteria.) You don't seem capable
of understanding this. Why?

> Before 1859 nobody
> associated this observation with anything getting naturaled , selected
> or "choices" being made by nature. Choices were though made by man
> yes, but nothing got artificialed in this process, it was Darwin who
> decreed in 1859 that from now on anybody breeding for a certain dog
> trait is "artficialing" dogs. What on earth was his intent with this.
> Artificial as opposed to what now the nature selection force?

None of this makes any sense, because you have invented a number of new
words with the apparent intent of confusing yourself and others. There
is no such thing as "naturaled", "artificialed", or "natural selection
force". Nobody claims there is. This is your personal strawman.

> The word "differential" is superfluous and why would some form of a
> "success" be "expected" for different gene types.
> Who did the expecting, what is the intent with "expected" ,
> "differential" and "success" ?

We do the expecting. If you can see a white moth on a tree but you can't
see a dark moth, we expect the white moths to suffer more predation than
the dark moths, and so to have less reproductive success (because dead
moths don't tend to reproduce at all). Differential just means
different. Why do different individuals have more or less reproductive
success? Success just means the number of surviving offspring. This has
been explained to death, yet you keep asking the same questions as if it
never had.

>>Some varieties are more successful than
>>others at reproducing. It has nothing to do with making a choice, as I
>>explained in the parts you cut out.
>
> Depends on your intent with "success". Why would we even want to drag
> this word into the discussion because it too implies consciousness,
> which is perhaps the reason it used as some form of subtle mind
> control.

It's sure too subtle for me. But your mind could use some controlling.
No, success does not imply consciousness. You sure have trouble with
simple words. Have you considered the possibility that all this is your
personal comprehension problem and that evolutionary biologists are
neither idiots nor sinister conspirators?

Kermit

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 7:07:50 PM10/5/07
to
On Oct 5, 1:28 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 9:22 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > Your sentence is the same sort of weasel words as
> > > the common ancestor nonsense. Differential means non-similar or not
> > > the same which is a red herring since reproduction took place wether
> > > the offspring are carbon copies or not is irrelevant to the question
> > > as to what this has got to do with anything making a "choice".
> > That was a bit of non-sequiturish gibberish. The "differential" refers
> > not to the comparison between parents and offspring, but between the
> > reproductive success (number of surviving offspring) expected for
> > different phenotypes/genotypes.
>
> O please - reproductive success. What is the intent with "success". I
> have asked you 10 times and you refuse to answer.

You have asked more than ten times, and lied as many. Some of the
answers were better than others; all were better than your question.

Asking what intent is rather than meaning or definition displays a
profound confusion. It is, or course, useless attempting real
communication with you, which is what most people do when they speak
or write.

> The success issue
> was discussed herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reproductive_success.


> "...Differential reproductive success...." is weasel words.

Curiously, the world has persisted in recognizing you as the arbiter
of meaning.

> The
> animals reproduces - this is our observation.

Sometimes.

> Before 1859 nobody
> associated this observation with anything getting naturaled , selected
> or "choices" being made by nature.

No, not choices. Didn't you read the quote you posted where Darwin
worried that the simple-minded might take his words literally?

> Choices were though made by man
> yes, but nothing got artificialed in this process,

Since you're the only person who uses this word, perhaps you could
explain its meaning. I don't give a damn about your intent; it's
clearly not to learn or communicate.

> it was Darwin who
> decreed in 1859 that from now on anybody breeding for a certain dog
> trait is "artficialing" dogs.

Are you truly so brain-damaged that you think we would believe this?
Darwin said no such thing, and I hope noone else has, either.

> What on earth was his intent with this.

What is your intent in telling abysmally stupid lies? And what do you
mean?

> Artificial as opposed to what now the nature selection force?

This is not written in any language I recognize.

>
> The word "differential" is superfluous

No. If the reproductive success of different organisms were not
reproductive then evolutionary theory would not exist, or would be
very, very different.

> and why would some form of a
> "success" be "expected" for different gene types.

I would have said that the average child could understand this easily,
but you don't understand what a definition is, so I despair instead.

> Who did the expecting, what is the intent with "expected" ,
> "differential" and "success" ?

What rains when it is raining?

>
> > Some varieties are more successful than
> > others at reproducing. It has nothing to do with making a choice, as I
> > explained in the parts you cut out.
>
> Depends on your intent with "success". Why would we even want to drag
> this word into the discussion because it too implies consciousness,

No it doesn't.

> which is perhaps the reason it used as some form of subtle mind
> control.

Bwahahahahahhaha!

Kermit

backspace

unread,
Oct 6, 2007, 2:01:17 AM10/6/07
to
On Oct 6, 1:07 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 1:28 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 5, 9:22 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > Your sentence is the same sort of weasel words as
> > > > the common ancestor nonsense. Differential means non-similar or not
> > > > the same which is a red herring since reproduction took place wether
> > > > the offspring are carbon copies or not is irrelevant to the question
> > > > as to what this has got to do with anything making a "choice".
> > > That was a bit of non-sequiturish gibberish. The "differential" refers
> > > not to the comparison between parents and offspring, but between the
> > > reproductive success (number of surviving offspring) expected for
> > > different phenotypes/genotypes.
>
> > O please - reproductive success. What is the intent with "success". I
> > have asked you 10 times and you refuse to answer.
>
> You have asked more than ten times, and lied as many. Some of the
> answers were better than others; all were better than your question.
>
> Asking what intent is rather than meaning or definition displays a
> profound confusion. It is, or course, useless attempting real
> communication with you, which is what most people do when they speak
> or write.

Meaning is semantics. To get the meaning of a word we define the word
and what it implies at dictionary.com.
Syntax, grammar and semantics is like layer 1 to 6 of the OSI model,
the goal is to communicate intent,motive, will or pragmatics or to
implement the application layer , layer 7 of the OSI model as
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com has described. Intel didn't spend a
$100million to lay down fine layers of copper, gold and silicon inside
a black plastic casing because they had nothing to do with their time.
The whole purpose is to enable somebody somewhere to communicate his
motives and will - something which you evolutionists are refusing to
do. We need to define our protocols in order to implement the layer 7,
in the same way the evolutionists must implement a protocol and define
what exactly do we mean with a "choice" or "selection". What the
evolutionists are doing is imagine somebody redefines ATM protocol to
no longer us 57bytes in its frame but 52bytes whenever it suites the
person. This has happened with human language, the materialists have
made "selection" and "choice" undefined for usage as a protocol to
communicate intent. This is tantamount to everybody specifying their
own packet widths for the ATM protocol - we won't be able to implement
our goal layer 7.

Ethernet usages variable frame rates, ATM uses fixed frame rates.
Evolutionists telling us that "selection" and "choice" no longer
implies consciousness is like them trying to communicate using
Ethernet while I am using ATM - we are not using the same protocol and
thus we can't understand each others motive,will or intent.


> > Depends on your intent with "success". Why would we even want to drag
> > this word into the discussion because it too implies consciousness,

> No it doesn't.

Yes, it does. The synonym for "success" is "achievement". Why would it
be an achievement for the frog to reproduce. Achievement according the
frog or the nature selection force? You only achieved something if
some prior goal is reached - do frogs have goals. Does nature have a
goal. Dernavich asks if beavers were meant to build A-frames would
their present structures be a failure. If cows were meant to produce
beer instead of milk would cows still be a "success"? You are defining
their "success" in terms of their ability to produce offspring and
dominate the species. But by this definition anything in existence is
a 'success', the moon is successful at being the moon for example. No,
you can't use the word "success" because it implies that the nature
selection force achieved its predetermined goal of making cows.

backspace

unread,
Oct 6, 2007, 2:45:18 AM10/6/07
to
On Oct 5, 11:07 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> > The word "differential" is superfluous and why would some form of a
> > "success" be "expected" for different gene types.

> To take an oft-used example, some animals run faster than others,
> based on their genes. The faster animals can expect to have a better
> survival rate (hence, "success") than the slower animals. They
> survive longer, they produce more offspring. Their genes spread
> through the gene pool at a greater rate than the genes of the slower
> animals.

Or lets say hard rocks survive the elements better based on their
hardness. The hardest rocks can expect to have
better survival rates than the softer rocks. These rocks will survive
longer. This completely begs the question as to why the hard rocks are
hard to begin with. Telling me that rocks are hard doesn't explain why
they hard.

backspace

unread,
Oct 6, 2007, 2:41:28 AM10/6/07
to
On Oct 5, 11:51 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>

wrote:
> backspace wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 9:22 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>>Your sentence is the same sort of weasel words as
> >>>the common ancestor nonsense. Differential means non-similar or not
> >>>the same which is a red herring since reproduction took place wether
> >>>the offspring are carbon copies or not is irrelevant to the question
> >>>as to what this has got to do with anything making a "choice".
>
> >>That was a bit of non-sequiturish gibberish. The "differential" refers
> >>not to the comparison between parents and offspring, but between the
> >>reproductive success (number of surviving offspring) expected for
> >>different phenotypes/genotypes.
>
> > O please - reproductive success. What is the intent with "success". I
> > have asked you 10 times and you refuse to answer.
>
> I have answered many times. You never appear to read it. Reproductive
> success is just the number of offspring you have that survive to breed.
>
> > The success issue
> > was discussed herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reproductive_success.

> > "...Differential reproductive success...." is weasel words. The
> > animals reproduces - this is our observation.

> Our observation is that some animals reproduce more than others, and
> that some of the difference in amount of reproduction (reproductive
> success) is correlated with differences in the characteristics of the
> animals. (Or plants, or protists, or bacteria.) You don't seem capable
> of understanding this. Why?

I understand it perfectly. The observation is that animals reproduce -
period. "differential" is a red herring. You might as well have said
rocks are hard, what is your intent, motive, what are you really
trying to say - that is what I want to know.

richardal...@googlemail.com

unread,
Oct 6, 2007, 4:03:09 AM10/6/07
to
On 6 Oct, 07:01, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 1:07 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 5, 1:28 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 5, 9:22 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Your sentence is the same sort of weasel words as
> > > > > the common ancestor nonsense. Differential means non-similar or not
> > > > > the same which is a red herring since reproduction took place wether
> > > > > the offspring are carbon copies or not is irrelevant to the question
> > > > > as to what this has got to do with anything making a "choice".
> > > > That was a bit of non-sequiturish gibberish. The "differential" refers
> > > > not to the comparison between parents and offspring, but between the
> > > > reproductive success (number of surviving offspring) expected for
> > > > different phenotypes/genotypes.
>
> > > O please - reproductive success. What is the intent with "success". I
> > > have asked you 10 times and you refuse to answer.
>
> > You have asked more than ten times, and lied as many. Some of the
> > answers were better than others; all were better than your question.
>
> > Asking what intent is rather than meaning or definition displays a
> > profound confusion. It is, or course, useless attempting real
> > communication with you, which is what most people do when they speak
> > or write.
>
> 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?

It means, of course, that the Bible was literally meaningless until a
few years ago when dictionary.com was set up.

If it's meaningless, how can it have any meaning?

By the way, have you ever tried to apply your "methods" to the Bible?

What are your pragmatics with "Genesis"?
What is your intent with "Chapter"?
What are your pragmatics with "One"?
What is your intent with "In"?
What is your intent with "the"?
What is your intent with "beginning"?
What is your intent with "was"?
What is your intent with "the" a second time, and is the pragmatics
the same as the first time you used the word?
What is your intent with "word"?
What is your intent with "and"?
What is your intent with "the" a third time, and is the pragmatics the
same as the first two times you used the word?
What is your intent with "word" a second time, and is the pragmatics
the same as the first time you used the word?
What is your intent with "was" a second time, and is the pragmatics
the same as the first time you used the word?
What is your intent with "God" a second time, and is the pragmatics
the same as the first time you used the word?
What is your intent with "and" a third time, and is the pragmatics the
same as the first two times you used the word?
What is your intent with "the" a fourth time, and is the pragmatics
the same as the first, second and third times you used the word?
What is your intent with "word" a second time, and is the pragmatics
the same as the first time you used the word?
What is your intent with "was" a third time, and is the pragmatics the
same as the first two times you used the word?
What is your intent with "with"?
What is your intent with "God" a third time, and is the pragmatics the
same as the first two times you used the word?

Unless you can give me the answers to this, and a similar analysis of
every book of the Bible in every translation in every language into
which it has ever been translated, the Bible is meaningless.

Why do you place your faith in something your methodology shows to be
meaningless?

RF
<twaddle snipped>

Phil Roberts

unread,
Oct 6, 2007, 5:58:43 AM10/6/07
to

Nothing but bullshit linguistic solipsism. You have more patience with
this egomaniac than I could ever muster.

backspace

unread,
Oct 6, 2007, 7:28:25 AM10/6/07
to
On Oct 6, 10:03 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com 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.

The words "selection" and "choice" like love, truth, mercy, kindness
and integrity were given to us by God himself. These words are eternal
words, they in a sense belong to God and no man dares change their
meaning. If the meaning of these were to change language itself
becomes undefined. And if language becomes undefined nobody can
communicate their intent anymore. 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.

Believing that in the beginning was language and information gives one
an absolute frame of reference. Language is neither matter nor energy
and no materialism that fails to take note of this can survive -
paraphrasing Norbert Weiner from MIT.

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

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

We observe the moon circling the earth and label it as gravity.
Labeling it doesn't explain why the moon is pulled towards the earth.
In the same way labeling the observation of changing allele
frequencies as 'evolution' doesn't explain why they change. Some even
label it 'Theory of evolution', confusing a theory and an observation.
A theory is a specification of the mechanism that causes the
observation.

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.

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? 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.

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

This means that the academic world is largely closed for Christians,
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". 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 have to decide between renouncing Christ and becoming a doctor -
these are choices. 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.

We observe the moon circling the earth and label it as gravity.
Labeling it doesn't explain why the moon is pulled towards the earth.
In the same way labeling the observation of changing allele
frequencies as 'evolution' doesn't explain why they change. Some even
label it 'Theory of evolution', confusing a theory and an observation.
A theory is a specification of the mechanism that causes the
observation.

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. And the same with the
Theory of Evolution - there is no such theory, so how could something
which doesn't exist be Godless?

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.

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.org or
http://www.answersingenesis.com

With evolution we are dealing with nothing else but pantheism. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

--
Falsify my Glossolalia http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker

richardal...@googlemail.com

unread,
Oct 6, 2007, 8:21:23 AM10/6/07
to
On 6 Oct, 12:28, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 10:03 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com 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.
>
What is your intent when you use the word"Good"?
What is your intent when you use the word"question,"?
What is your intent when you use the word"what"?
What is your intent when you use the word"you"?
What is your intent when you use the word"are"?
What is your intent when you use the word"really"?
What is your intent when you use the word"asking"?
What is your intent when you use the word"is"?
What is your intent when you use the word"where"?
What is your intent when you use the word"did"?
What is your intent when you use the word"language"?
What is your intent when you use the word"originate?"?
What is your intent when you use the word"Chomsky"?
What is your intent when you use the word"says"?
What is your intent when you use the word"that"?
What is your intent when you use the word"natural"?
What is your intent when you use the word"selection"?
What is your intent when you use the word"can't"?
What is your intent when you use the word"explain"?
What is your intent when you use the word"where"?
What is your intent when you use the word"language"?
What is your intent when you use the word"came"?
What is your intent when you use the word"from."?
What is your intent when you use the word"Language"?
What is your intent when you use the word"came"?
What is your intent when you use the word"from"?
What is your intent when you use the word"God"?
What is your intent when you use the word"who"?
What is your intent when you use the word"have"?
What is your intent when you use the word"existed"?
What is your intent when you use the word"since"?
What is your intent when you use the word"before"?
What is your intent when you use the word"eternity"?
What is your intent when you use the word"began."?


Until you can answer these questions you are not even wrong.

RF

Iain

unread,
Oct 6, 2007, 8:30:54 AM10/6/07
to
On Oct 5, 7:44 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 12:43 am, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Has this cleared your addledness?
> > > No, because why did he then use the word "selection" for which the
> > > synonym is "choice"?
> > Because they are not perfect synonyms.
> > Choice is always conscious.
> > Selection is not always conscious.
>
> Your *semantics* or meaning (note meaning not intent) or definition of
> the word *selection* differs from mine,

But not from Darwin's.

It really is simple, if you just unclutter your mind of junk for a
second.

He called it "natural selection" -- and then effectively said: "I
know, I know, selection isn't a great term, but you get the general
idea".

He added that paragraph for the benefit of people like you, so that
you don't misinterpret him. Somehow you've managed to make a dog's
breakfast of it anyway.

Is there something fundamentally confusing about this?

~Iain

John Harshman

unread,
Oct 6, 2007, 9:23:48 AM10/6/07
to
backspace wrote:

No you don't. It's obvious that you don't want to know anything, because
knowledge makes you uncomfortable. So you have erected this huge
structure of protective beliefs and practices that prevent you from
learning anything at all. I suspect you even snip peoples' posts without
reading them if they look the least bit dangerous.

You make creationists look bad (!), and you should be ashamed of yourself.

William Wingstedt

unread,
Oct 6, 2007, 10:11:49 AM10/6/07
to
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 07:58:07 -0700, backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_selection#Clarification_needed
>
>"...It is trying to say that since fitness is a probabilistic quantity
>(like life expectancy) a mutation could increase an individual's
>fitness and still not increase its actual reproductive success..."
>
>>From the quotes I gave on fitness where did the author get
>"reproductive success" and "probabilistic quantity" from?
>It is obvious that he has invented his own intent with fitness, why
>should we even bother with his intent if there are thousands of
>different other intents with "fitness"?


>
>I also note that "Theory of natural selection" no longer redirects to

>Natural selection on Wikipedia and that argument from authority
>article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact has


>had its link removed from the natural selection Wikipedia article.
>Read the article to see what evolutionists thinks of everybody's
>intelligence - they view people as a bunch of morons that one can
>patronize with arrogance and condescension
>with statements like the following:
>Gravity is a "fact". Evolution is a "fact"
>

>Who do evolutionists think you are talking to?

I'd expect they think I'm talking to you. Are you responding to my
post? It sure doesn't seem like it.

>

backspace

unread,
Oct 6, 2007, 10:39:24 AM10/6/07
to
On Oct 6, 2:30 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Your *semantics* or meaning (note meaning not intent) or definition of
> > the word *selection* differs from mine,
>
> But not from Darwin's.
>
> It really is simple, if you just unclutter your mind of junk for a
> second.
>
> He called it "natural selection" -- and then effectively said: "I
> know, I know, selection isn't a great term, but you get the general
> idea".
>
> He added that paragraph for the benefit of people like you, so that
> you don't misinterpret him. Somehow you've managed to make a dog's
> breakfast of it anyway.
>
> Is there something fundamentally confusing about this?

Yes, the confusion comes in the fact that you don't believe God
exists. Since I believe he exists I also believe that he defined the
meaning of "selection" to always mean a conscious choice - God says
so. And you as mortal being nor Darwin can redefine God's language for
him. You know it took me over 10 years to figure this out: It all bogs
down to what does God define "selection" to mean.

Who gave us the meaning of "love" and "God" - God himself, and he also
gave us the meaning of "selection".

Iain

unread,
Oct 6, 2007, 12:09:27 PM10/6/07
to
On Oct 6, 3:39 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2:30 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Your *semantics* or meaning (note meaning not intent) or definition of
> > > the word *selection* differs from mine,
>
> > But not from Darwin's.
>
> > It really is simple, if you just unclutter your mind of junk for a
> > second.
>
> > He called it "natural selection" -- and then effectively said: "I
> > know, I know, selection isn't a great term, but you get the general
> > idea".
>
> > He added that paragraph for the benefit of people like you, so that
> > you don't misinterpret him. Somehow you've managed to make a dog's
> > breakfast of it anyway.
>
> > Is there something fundamentally confusing about this?
>
> Yes, the confusion comes in the fact that you don't believe God
> exists.

Wha? How did you come to that conclusion? Even if you were right,
there's no way you could know.

> Since I believe he exists I also believe that he defined the
> meaning of "selection"

Uh, no. The meaning of "selection" was defined through usage. The
English language is not god-made. Not even the wierdest theists
believe that.

If Darwin had spoken Esperanto, I wonder what mad hypnotic rambling
you'd be spouting.

> to always mean a conscious choice - God says
> so.

No he doesn't. God is not a frikkin dictionary-writer.

> And you as mortal being nor Darwin can redefine God's language

Um, Darwin was writing in standard 19th century British English.

And in that language, he described the environmental influence upon
reproduction as "natural selection". He then added, parenthetically,
that one should not take this to mean "conscious selection".

He stated explicitly that he did not mean "conscious selection"

So, there is no way, in the wildest flights of fancy, that you can
read into that that he _did_ mean "conscious selection".

~Iain

Greg Guarino

unread,
Oct 6, 2007, 12:33:56 PM10/6/07
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 04:28:25 -0700, backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

When exactly?

Greg Guarino

Greg Guarino

unread,
Oct 6, 2007, 12:31:49 PM10/6/07
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 07:39:24 -0700, backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It all bogs
>down

Indeed.

Greg Guarino

John Harshman

unread,
Oct 6, 2007, 12:38:46 PM10/6/07
to
Greg Guarino wrote:

Hey, if English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me.

backspace

unread,
Oct 6, 2007, 1:08:32 PM10/6/07
to
On Oct 6, 6:09 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > He added that paragraph for the benefit of people like you, so that
> > > you don't misinterpret him. Somehow you've managed to make a dog's
> > > breakfast of it anyway.

> > > Is there something fundamentally confusing about this?

> > Yes, the confusion comes in the fact that you don't believe God
> > exists.

> Wha? How did you come to that conclusion? Even if you were right,
> there's no way you could know.

> > Since I believe he exists I also believe that he defined the
> > meaning of "selection"

> Uh, no. The meaning of "selection" was defined through usage. The
> English language is not god-made. Not even the wierdest theists
> believe that.

You must understand the Christian beliefs and premises. In the
beginning was neither matter nor energy but the Word or Logos - Jesus
Christ. He spoke the universe into existence and become a man - he is
language itself.
Our language certainly is God-made this is the very definition of
being a Christian. If God says "love", "hate", "wrong", "right" means
exactly what it means then nobody neither Ham, Darwin nor Dawkins can
change the semantics, the meaning of the word love into hate ,nor
*selection* or *choice* into something that doesn't imply conscious
decision making. But you know Paul wrote that in the last days *evil*
will become *good* and good will become evil.

And what better way to sow evil and damn mankind by redefining the
very meaning of words that are eternal and have
been defined by God himself as having an eternal fixed meaning. But if
you don't believe there is a God that fixed the
meaning of the word "selection" then obviously you can invent your
meanings anyway you want and redefine words as you see fit as you
create your own reality.

> And in that language, he described the environmental influence upon
> reproduction as "natural selection". He then added, parenthetically,
> that one should not take this to mean "conscious selection".

> He stated explicitly that he did not mean "conscious selection"

Then he had no right to use the word *selection* that specifically and
only means a conscious choice. Darwin can't redefine God's language
for him. It really is this simple, the entire debate the last 150
years has pivoted on a simple grammatical mistake the concatenation of
"natural" and "selection" to create a phrase that can't possibly
exist.

William Wingstedt

unread,
Oct 6, 2007, 1:15:25 PM10/6/07
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 07:39:24 -0700, backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Oct 6, 2:30 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Your *semantics* or meaning (note meaning not intent) or definition of
>> > the word *selection* differs from mine,
>>
>> But not from Darwin's.
>>
>> It really is simple, if you just unclutter your mind of junk for a
>> second.
>>
>> He called it "natural selection" -- and then effectively said: "I
>> know, I know, selection isn't a great term, but you get the general
>> idea".
>>
>> He added that paragraph for the benefit of people like you, so that
>> you don't misinterpret him. Somehow you've managed to make a dog's
>> breakfast of it anyway.
>>
>> Is there something fundamentally confusing about this?
>
>Yes, the confusion comes in the fact that you don't believe God
>exists. Since I believe he exists I also believe that he defined the
>meaning of "selection" to always mean a conscious choice - God says
>so. And you as mortal being nor Darwin can redefine God's language for
>him.

You already forgot that I don't believe in gods. I can choose to
redefine language at any time.

>You know it took me over 10 years to figure this out: It all bogs
>down to what does God define "selection" to mean.

You certainly are not very adept at using language. All your
protestations about language would lead one to think you would not use
the word "bog" in this context. You really should be more careful in
your use of language, because your carelessness is easily interpreted
as foolishness.

>Who gave us the meaning of "love" and "God" - God himself, and he also
>gave us the meaning of "selection".
>

I don't think so.

Iain

unread,
Oct 6, 2007, 2:01:27 PM10/6/07
to
On Oct 6, 6:08 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 6:09 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > He added that paragraph for the benefit of people like you, so that
> > > > you don't misinterpret him. Somehow you've managed to make a dog's
> > > > breakfast of it anyway.
> > > > Is there something fundamentally confusing about this?
> > > Yes, the confusion comes in the fact that you don't believe God
> > > exists.
> > Wha? How did you come to that conclusion? Even if you were right,
> > there's no way you could know.
> > > Since I believe he exists I also believe that he defined the
> > > meaning of "selection"
> > Uh, no. The meaning of "selection" was defined through usage. The
> > English language is not god-made. Not even the wierdest theists
> > believe that.
>
> You must understand the Christian beliefs and premises. In the
> beginning was neither matter nor energy but the Word or Logos - Jesus
> Christ. He spoke the universe into existence and become a man - he is
> language itself.
> Our language certainly is God-made this is the very definition of
> being a Christian. If God says "love", "hate", "wrong", "right"


Sigh.

Whereever it comes from, the language is not as you say it is.

> means
> exactly what it means then nobody neither Ham, Darwin nor Dawkins can
> change the semantics, the meaning of the word love into hate ,nor
> *selection* or *choice*

Change what?

Who in the universe ever said that "selection" = "choice" in the first
place? You and you alone. Where did you get that idea from? Everything
you have said thus far is an overwrought edifice of bullshit from your
own arse.

> into something that doesn't imply conscious
> decision making. But you know Paul wrote that in the last days *evil*
> will become *good* and good will become evil.
>
> And what better way to sow evil and damn mankind by redefining the
> very meaning of words

Or indeed, editing other people's quotations, as you did in a previous
post...

> that are eternal and have
> been defined by God himself as having an eternal fixed meaning. But if
> you don't believe there is a God that fixed the
> meaning of the word "selection" then obviously you can invent your
> meanings anyway you want and redefine words as you see fit as you
> create your own reality.
>
> > And in that language, he described the environmental influence upon
> > reproduction as "natural selection". He then added, parenthetically,
> > that one should not take this to mean "conscious selection".
> > He stated explicitly that he did not mean "conscious selection"
>
> Then he had no right to use the word *selection*

Let us suppose he chose a bad word.

Either way...

Darwin explicitly stated that he did not say "selection" to mean
"conscious choice".

Darwin, stated, explicitly, that he did not say "selection" to mean
"conscious choice".

In other words, Dawin specified, explicitly that he did not mean
"conscious choice".

So, with all this in mind, what the hell is your point?

~Iain

backspace

unread,
Oct 6, 2007, 3:09:44 PM10/6/07
to
On Oct 6, 8:01 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Then he had no right to use the word *selection*

> Let us suppose he chose a bad word.

> Either way...

> Darwin explicitly stated that he did not say "selection" to mean
> "conscious choice".

> Darwin, stated, explicitly, that he did not say "selection" to mean
> "conscious choice".

> In other words, Dawin specified, explicitly that he did not mean
> "conscious choice".

> So, with all this in mind, what the hell is your point?

That 1+1= 2 is an axiomatic statement - I can't prove it. In the same
way *selection* is a *choice*. It really is that simple, but because
YEC and Dawkins are brainwashed they might never be able to grasp this
axiomatic statement: Selection means conscious choice and that's just
that. And it wasn't a creationist that have pointed this out but a
person by the name of Dernavich who used his God given intelligence to
realize that Darwin made a grammatical mistake and that is just that.
See http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2001/dernavich1.html

"..It brings up the problem I have always had with the term "natural
selection." We all know what it means, and I can't dispute it's
validity as a model for the differentiation of species. As a word
couplet, though, it is a grammatical gargoyle, like the term
"cybersex." If you were asked to describe what sex is, it probably
wouldn't sound like what happens when a lonely data-entry intern in
Baltimore starts typing his fantasies on a flat screen which, thanks
to thousands of miles of fiber-optic cable, is then read by someone in
Spokane. That situation has nothing to with the purposes or processes
of sex, as either God or nature intended it. The modifier is not true
to its object. Although the word "cyber-" is intended as a kind of
adjective, it comes dangerously close to totally redefining the word
which it is only supposed to modify. Contrarily, one could have a blue
book or a brown book, but in either case it is still a book. One could
make a hasty selection or a careful selection; it is still a
selection. But natural? A selection is a choice, and only a conscious
being that can process information can really make a choice, or even
input information into a system which will later result in a choice.
However, when the drying of a swamp puts a salamander out of
existence, that is an occurrence. We are comfortable with "natural
selection" as a phrase, because it conjures up images of Mother
Nature, or some cosmic Gepetto tinkering with his toys. As a technical
term, it is a misleading oxymoron...."


Christopher Denney

unread,
Oct 6, 2007, 6:11:05 PM10/6/07
to

Everyone should just give up, this fool believes he speaks for god
directly, so will never learn.
He is nothing but a blasphemer to the religious and a crazy to the
rest of us.
Doesn't sound curable to me, maybe with the right meds.

Christopher Denney

unread,
Oct 6, 2007, 6:12:10 PM10/6/07
to
On Oct 6, 9:09 am, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hopefully my other reply was clear that I was speaking of backspace,
not you Iain.

Cj

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 12:00:46 AM10/7/07
to
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote

> The word "differential" is superfluous and why would some form of a
> "success" be "expected" for different gene types.
> Who did the expecting, what is the intent with "expected" ,
> "differential" and "success" ?
>
>> Some varieties are more successful than
>> others at reproducing. It has nothing to do with making a choice, as I
>> explained in the parts you cut out.
>
> Depends on your intent with "success". Why would we even want to drag
> this word into the discussion because it too implies consciousness,
> which is perhaps the reason it used as some form of subtle mind
> control.
>

I see you are starting with that brainless ranting about intent and
questioning the meaning of words that are quite obviously understood even by
children. What is your pragmatics?.... you have made this a truly stupid
question. I have to conclude that when faced with any form of disagreement
you shift into this questioning mode.. what a peculiar aberration you have.
Cj

backspace

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 1:14:16 AM10/7/07
to
On Oct 7, 12:12 am, Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hopefully my other reply was clear that I was speaking of backspace,
> not you Iain.

You are arguing from authority by stating that by your authority as
the overlords and secular high priests of
metaphysical materialism you hereby decree that from 1859 the
*semantics* or meaning of the word *selection* no longer implies a
conscious choice, decision, preference or discrimination. You don't
even attempt to motivate your position by referring to the usage of
the word before 1859. What was the meaning of *selection* in 1200AD?
It obviously only implied one thing - conscious choice and this is a
historical fact. Darwin was a fool who understood nothing about
Maxwell's equations who was a creationist. So Darwin said so and
therefore it is now just so-so - this is the essence of your argument
mixed in with personal attacks on me as though that somehow negates
from the historical linguistic facts surrounding *selection* and
*choice*. Saying something is so doesn't make it so,evolutionists are
under the impression that simply decreeing stuff establishes it as a
fact. But since you are in a sense your own God's free to create your
own reality you are exercising your delusions by arbitrarily changing
the meaning of words, the meaning of which has been eternally fixed by
God.

Slimebot McGoo

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 1:40:30 AM10/7/07
to

Still stupid, I see. You're trying to be, right? Good job.

McGoo

Steven J.

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 1:59:54 AM10/7/07
to
On Oct 6, 2:09 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 8:01 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Then he had no right to use the word *selection*
> > Let us suppose he chose a bad word.
> > Either way...
> > Darwin explicitly stated that he did not say "selection" to mean
> > "conscious choice".
> > Darwin, stated, explicitly, that he did not say "selection" to mean
> > "conscious choice".
> > In other words, Dawin specified, explicitly that he did not mean
> > "conscious choice".
> > So, with all this in mind, what the hell is your point?
>
> That 1+1= 2 is an axiomatic statement - I can't prove it. In the same
> way *selection* is a *choice*. It really is that simple, but because
> YEC and Dawkins are brainwashed they might never be able to grasp this
> axiomatic statement: Selection means conscious choice and that's just
> that. And it wasn't a creationist that have pointed this out but a
> person by the name of Dernavich who used his God given intelligence to
> realize that Darwin made a grammatical mistake and that is just that.
> Seehttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2001/dernavich1.html
>
For someone as apparently interested in language as you seem to be,
you know astonishingly little about it. The meanings of words are not
axiomatic; they change over time, sometimes subtly, sometimes
drastically, along with the spellings and pronunciations of words.
Consider, just in English, how few people anymore would use the word
"suffer" to mean "permit," although that is its usual meaning in the
King James Bible. Of course, most common words have a range of
meanings, so that the same word can have very different meanings in
different contexts. "Selection" does not AXIOMATICALLY mean
"choice." Even if that is the usual meaning, or part of the usual
meaning, in most contexts, does not imply that "natural selection"
implies any sort of conscious choice, or any "selection force," or
anything except that the results of differential survival of variant
offspring can result in the same sorts of effects as conscious choice
by breeders seeking particular changes in their stocks.

>
> "..It brings up the problem I have always had with the term "natural
> selection." We all know what it means, and I can't dispute it's
> validity as a model for the differentiation of species. As a word
> couplet, though, it is a grammatical gargoyle, like the term
> "cybersex." If you were asked to describe what sex is, it probably
> wouldn't sound like what happens when a lonely data-entry intern in
> Baltimore starts typing his fantasies on a flat screen which, thanks
> to thousands of miles of fiber-optic cable, is then read by someone in
> Spokane. That situation has nothing to with the purposes or processes
> of sex, as either God or nature intended it. The modifier is not true
> to its object. Although the word "cyber-" is intended as a kind of
> adjective, it comes dangerously close to totally redefining the word
> which it is only supposed to modify. Contrarily, one could have a blue
> book or a brown book, but in either case it is still a book. One could
> make a hasty selection or a careful selection; it is still a
> selection. But natural? A selection is a choice, and only a conscious
> being that can process information can really make a choice, or even
> input information into a system which will later result in a choice.
> However, when the drying of a swamp puts a salamander out of
> existence, that is an occurrence. We are comfortable with "natural
> selection" as a phrase, because it conjures up images of Mother
> Nature, or some cosmic Gepetto tinkering with his toys. As a technical
> term, it is a misleading oxymoron...."
>
So we should abandon a term in biology because it gives you the heebie-
jeebies? Perhaps, while we are at it, we should abandon the term
"bluebell" (since they are flowers, not bells), "ladybird" (since half
of them are male and none of them are birds), and "shellfish" (since,
while all of them have shells, none of them are fish -- and they do
not even belong to the same phylum as fish or one another.

-- Steven J.

backspace

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 2:31:56 AM10/7/07
to
On Oct 7, 7:59 am, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> For someone as apparently interested in language as you seem to be,
> you know astonishingly little about it. The meanings of words are not
> axiomatic; they change over time, sometimes subtly, sometimes
> drastically, along with the spellings and pronunciations of words.

The intent God has with consciousness, decisions and choices never
changes.

> Consider, just in English, how few people anymore would use the word
> "suffer" to mean "permit," although that is its usual meaning in the
> King James Bible. Of course, most common words have a range of
> meanings, so that the same word can have very different meanings in
> different contexts.

Yes, this is known as intent, I am talking about the semantics of the
words selection, choice and preference.

> "Selection" does not AXIOMATICALLY mean "choice."

Motivate what you by showing me what was the semantics with the words
selection, choice and preference before
1859.

> Even if that is the usual meaning, or part of the usual
> meaning, in most contexts, does not imply that "natural selection"
> implies any sort of conscious choice,

You are begging the question - natural selection is the term under
dispute.

> or any "selection force," or
> anything except that the results of differential survival of variant
> offspring can result in the same sorts of effects as conscious choice
> by breeders seeking particular changes in their stocks.

What did "differential", "survival" and "offspring" had to do with the
words selection, choices and preference when Jesus walked the earth?
Cows make baby cows - what has this got to do anybody making
*choices*.

> So we should abandon a term in biology because it gives you the heebie-
> jeebies?

What is your intent with *biology* - it could meaning. Everything that
breathes is part of "biology".

> Perhaps, while we are at it, we should abandon the term
> "bluebell" (since they are flowers, not bells), "ladybird" (since half
> of them are male and none of them are birds), and "shellfish" (since,
> while all of them have shells, none of them are fish -- and they do
> not even belong to the same phylum as fish or one another.

God told Adam to name the animals not redefine the meaning of
consciousness and choices. Ladybird is word we coined and the intent
we have with it is clear, but we can't change the meaning of words
God has coined, nor change the intent God had the words - because he
is language himself. And you can't tell God himself that you are
changing his language, unless of course you think you are a God or
believe in some sort of nature selection force.


Steven J.

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 3:00:48 AM10/7/07
to
On Oct 7, 1:31 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 7:59 am, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > For someone as apparently interested in language as you seem to be,
> > you know astonishingly little about it. The meanings of words are not
> > axiomatic; they change over time, sometimes subtly, sometimes
> > drastically, along with the spellings and pronunciations of words.
>
> The intent God has with consciousness, decisions and choices never
> changes.
>
Perhaps you could adduce some evidence to support this claim. Or, at
least, perhaps you could translate it into English as spoken by actual
literal human beings.

>
> > Consider, just in English, how few people anymore would use the word
> > "suffer" to mean "permit," although that is its usual meaning in the
> > King James Bible. Of course, most common words have a range of
> > meanings, so that the same word can have very different meanings in
> > different contexts.
>
> Yes, this is known as intent, I am talking about the semantics of the
> words selection, choice and preference.
>
Darwin used the word "selection" (modified by the adjective "natural")
metaphorically, to indicate that because offspring differed among
themselves, and some were more likely to survive and reproduce than
others, and because some of their differences from one another were
inherited, populations changed, even without conscious preferences, in
ways that mimicked the effects of human selective breeding. "Natural
selection" was a metaphor, at first; later, influenced by the term,
biologists came to use "selection" to indicate any situation, whether
it involved intelligence and deliberate choice or not, in which some
alleles were more likely to make it into the next generation than
others. The meaning of the word changed over time.

>
> > "Selection" does not AXIOMATICALLY mean "choice."
>
> Motivate what you by showing me what was the semantics with the words
> selection, choice and preference before 1859.
>
I cannot tell if the above sentence is the work of a semiliterate
dullard or a brilliant satirist. After all, if Darwin can change the
meaning of the word "selection," why can't you change the meaning of
the word "motivate?" However, I think the answer to that question is
that Darwin was a brilliant scientist who helped revolutionize our
understanding of biology, whereas you are an obnoxious troll.
Furthermore, I think the above sentence is missing a verb ("motivate
what you [verb] by showing me, etc."), even if I grant that "motivate"
can be used in whatever weird way you seem to be using it.

>
> > Even if that is the usual meaning, or part of the usual
> > meaning, in most contexts, does not imply that "natural selection"
> > implies any sort of conscious choice,
>
> You are begging the question - natural selection is the term under
> dispute.
>
I am not begging the question, I am answering it. That you don't like
my answer does not make it incorrect.

>
> > or any "selection force," or
> > anything except that the results of differential survival of variant
> > offspring can result in the same sorts of effects as conscious choice
> > by breeders seeking particular changes in their stocks.
>
> What did "differential", "survival" and "offspring" had to do with the
> words selection, choices and preference when Jesus walked the earth?
> Cows make baby cows - what has this got to do anybody making
> *choices*.
>
First of all, English did not exist in the first century AD.
Therefore, the words "selection," "choices," and "preference" did not
exist or mean anything (their Latin and Germanic roots existed, of
course: "choice" comes from a Germanic root meaning "to taste," which
should give you some clue as to how word meanings can change over
time).

Second, cows having calves has little or nothing to do with choice.
But if there are biting insects that carry a disease that affects some
cows and not others, cows that are resistant will have more calves
than cows that are vulnerable to the disease. That has the same
effect as selective breeding for resistance to that disease.


>
> > So we should abandon a term in biology because it gives you the heebie-
> > jeebies?
>
> What is your intent with *biology* - it could meaning. Everything that
> breathes is part of "biology".
>

Actually, the subject matter of biology goes far beyond organisms that
breathe; even zoology extends to some animals that don't breathe. On
the other hand, not even all humans are part of the scientific field
of biology: most people do not engage in research and hypothesis-
testing about living things and their constituent systems and the
ecological networks they form parts of.


>
> > Perhaps, while we are at it, we should abandon the term
> > "bluebell" (since they are flowers, not bells), "ladybird" (since half
> > of them are male and none of them are birds), and "shellfish" (since,
> > while all of them have shells, none of them are fish -- and they do
> > not even belong to the same phylum as fish or one another.
>
> God told Adam to name the animals not redefine the meaning of
> consciousness and choices. Ladybird is word we coined and the intent
> we have with it is clear, but we can't change the meaning of words
> God has coined, nor change the intent God had the words - because he
> is language himself. And you can't tell God himself that you are
> changing his language, unless of course you think you are a God or
> believe in some sort of nature selection force.
>

Adam was a mythical character. You, on the other hand, are a
delusional character.

-- Steven J.


backspace

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 5:25:14 AM10/7/07
to
On Oct 7, 9:00 am, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> > > For someone as apparently interested in language as you seem to be,
> > > you know astonishingly little about it. The meanings of words are not
> > > axiomatic; they change over time, sometimes subtly, sometimes
> > > drastically, along with the spellings and pronunciations of words.

> > The intent God has with consciousness, decisions and choices never
> > changes.

> Perhaps you could adduce some evidence to support this claim. Or, at
> least, perhaps you could translate it into English as spoken by actual
> literal human beings.

You don't believe in God I do , what is there further to discuss then?
And this is what Dembski and Ken Ham don't understand, the debate is
going nowhere because nobody seems to realize what evolutionists
believe about language itself. Whatever you believe about language it
will forever remain a belief, we simply are able to speak and have no
idea how we got this ability. Evolutionists believe their language is
just atoms bouncing together and they believe this by faith. I by
faith believe that language is neither matter nor energy but is
responsible for matter and energy. Matter and energy are subject unto
language, evolutionists believe the reverse. How could we possibly
"prove" either position as true or false? On Dembski's blog his goes
on and on about dogmatic materialism - no Dembski what does Wilkins
believe about language and what do you believe about it and what does
Chomsky believe about it - this is where the debate must be.

Gould believed his mind consisted of illusions - so why should we
believe anything he said. Dr.Wilkins said that "...there is something
wrong with language itself...." and thus there is something wrong with
his language and we shouldn't believe anything he says. Jesus saying
"...for every idle word man shall speak he will give account of..."
indicates what Christ thought about language - since he of course is
language in the flesh.

Christians and Atheist need to be honest about their religious beliefs
and stop using this undefined term "science" - nobody knows what
science means. For materialists it is a rhetorical word that they use
when arguing from authority
or appealing to abstract authority. For example materialists keep on
repeating that "science says so" and science doesn't say anything -
there is no such person. And no matter how much this is pointed out
them they just carry on. Why ? Because they are inventing their own
language reality. If like some of them believe that their minds
consists of illusions then it doesn't matter what they say. For
example Harshman refuses to acknowledge the pragmatics, semantics,
syntax , grammar distinction as expounded by Gitt who is a YEC with a
PHD. The evolutionists are refusing to admit that we must always
communicate will, motive and intent. But because their minds consists
of illusions they don't care what intent they communicate. All they
can agree on is that there is no God, but each motives this with
different intent and semantics - who should I believe then?

StevenJ how could you be so certain about your intent with natural
selection if Chomsky says it doesn't explain language? And what is
your intent random or non-random. Do you believe it is an effect like
Chris Colby or a cause. But if it is an effect, what then is the
cause.

And when we try to understand the intent we realize that the
materialists from Colby to Harshman, Wilkins, Darwin all invent their
own intent, their own language reality. Some say it is "random" ,
others "non-random" See http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/2feef56c7bedd98c/#
for the random, non-random issue and
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c1902dbe5979d87f/bdab556847b77640#bdab556847b77640
for the SoF issue.

> Darwin used the word "selection" (modified by the adjective "natural")
> metaphorically,

And this is precisely the problem. We mustn't you use metaphors but
clearly state what exactly are we talking about since we have such
confusion over this word. Dernavich made a post about his essay here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=89

> Second, cows having calves has little or nothing to do with choice.
> But if there are biting insects that carry a disease that affects some
> cows and not others, cows that are resistant will have more calves
> than cows that are vulnerable to the disease.

This would be an observation, not an explanation as to why the cows
are resistant to the disease. You are making a tautological statement.
The best cows are the strongest cows, doesn't explain why they are the
best, it just restates the observation after the fact.

wf3h

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 8:01:57 AM10/7/07
to
On Oct 7, 1:31 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 7:59 am, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > For someone as apparently interested in language as you seem to be,
> > you know astonishingly little about it. The meanings of words are not
> > axiomatic; they change over time, sometimes subtly, sometimes
> > drastically, along with the spellings and pronunciations of words.
>
> The intent God has with consciousness, decisions and choices never
> changes.

since 'GOD' has no meaning, we can't KNOW what changes he's had, or
whether he does change. your statement is meaningless.

>
>> >
> > or any "selection force," or
> > anything except that the results of differential survival of variant
> > offspring can result in the same sorts of effects as conscious choice
> > by breeders seeking particular changes in their stocks.
>
> What did "differential", "survival" and "offspring" had to do with the
> words selection, choices and preference when Jesus walked the earth?

who was jesus? what is meant by 'jesus'? why do christians not agree
on who he was, or what he meant?

seems you have a pole in your own eye while you try to remove the mote
in the eye of scientists...
>
> God told Adam

how did he tell adam? how do we know this? what did adam understand
god to mean?

IOW your statements about god have no context, no bearing on the issue
and are without meaning.

to name the animals not redefine the meaning of
> consciousness and choices. Ladybird is word we coined and the intent
> we have with it is clear, but we can't change the meaning of words
> God has coined,

what words did god 'coin'? what was his intent?

more garbage...


wf3h

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 7:58:45 AM10/7/07
to
On Oct 7, 4:25 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> You don't believe in God I do , what is there further to discuss then?
> And this is what Dembski and Ken Ham don't understand, the debate is
> going nowhere because nobody seems to realize what evolutionists
> believe about language itself.

the moron seems to think that ONLY 'evolutionists' have beliefs about
language.

Whatever you believe about language it
> will forever remain a belief, we simply are able to speak and have no
> idea how we got this ability. Evolutionists believe their language is
> just atoms bouncing together and they believe this by faith.

for a fanatic who is obsessed with language, is there ANY idea that is
less clear than this collection of words? how can 'language' be
'atoms'?

no one knows what the fanatic means. and is there ANY idea less clear
than 'god', which he says he believes in?

I by
> faith believe that language is neither matter nor energy but is
> responsible for matter and energy.

more garbage...


>
> Gould believed his mind consisted of illusions - so why should we
> believe anything he said. Dr.Wilkins said that "...there is something
> wrong with language itself...." and thus there is something wrong with
> his language and we shouldn't believe anything he says. Jesus saying
> "...for every idle word man shall speak he will give account of..."
> indicates what Christ thought about language - since he of course is
> language in the flesh.
>

what is meant by 'jesus'? talk about an idea without meaning. how
does 'language' become flesh (even though the NT gospel of john
prostituted the greek word 'logos' to mean 'the word')?

> Christians and Atheist need to be honest about their religious beliefs
> and stop using this undefined term "science" - nobody knows what
> science means

seems we chemists do. seems the religious fanatics do, too, since they
hate it so vehemently they wish to destroy it. and, implicitly, the
religious fanatic DOES know what science means since he accepts the
scientist invented computer...

. For materialists it is a rhetorical word that they use
> when arguing from authority
> or appealing to abstract authority. For example materialists keep on
> repeating that "science says so" and science doesn't say anything -
> there is no such person.

ROFLMAO!!! guess he's never read much creationist trash since
creationists ROUTINELY accuse 'science' of destroying morality,
freedom, etc...


And no matter how much this is pointed out
> them they just carry on. Why ? Because they are inventing their own
> language reality. If like some of them believe that their minds
> consists of illusions then it doesn't matter what they say. For
> example Harshman refuses to acknowledge the pragmatics, semantics,
> syntax , grammar distinction as expounded by Gitt who is a YEC with a
> PHD. The evolutionists are refusing to admit that we must always
> communicate will, motive and intent. But because their minds consists
> of illusions they don't care what intent they communicate. All they
> can agree on is that there is no God, but each motives this with
> different intent and semantics - who should I believe then?

let's see...there are 30,000 christian denominations...

seems christians:

don't know what 'god' means
don't agree on what the bible teaches
don't agree what books are in the bible
don't agree on how to interpret the bible
don't agree on what 'christian' means

HE thinks that theology is perfectly clear and leads to logical
thought, even while using his scientist invented computer to tell us
how incoherent science is

if religion WERE as clear as he says it is, it wouldn't have held
civilization back for a thousand years.

> >
> > Darwin used the word "selection" (modified by the adjective "natural")
> > metaphorically,
>
> And this is precisely the problem. We mustn't you use metaphors but
> clearly state what exactly are we talking about since we have such
> confusion over this word. Dernavich made a post about his essay here:http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=89

OK...what are we 'talking' about when we say:

GOD?

oh. you can't tell us. the word has no meaning.

thanks, creationist.

>

wf3h

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 8:42:57 AM10/7/07
to
On Oct 7, 12:14 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> You are arguing from authority by stating that by your authority as
> the overlords and secular high priests of
> metaphysical materialism

1. we know the material world exists
2. we don't know god exists

and from this the creationist assumes 1 is false even though he agrees
with it.


Darwin was a fool who understood nothing about
> Maxwell's equations who was a creationist.

everybody was a creationist before darwin, and darwin's contemporaries
often didn't understand evolution. virtually no scientist today is a
creationist.

So Darwin said so and
> therefore it is now just so-so - this is the essence of your argument
> mixed in with personal attacks on me as though that somehow negates
> from the historical linguistic facts surrounding *selection* and
> *choice*. Saying something is so doesn't make it so,evolutionists are
> under the impression that simply decreeing stuff establishes it as a
> fact. But since you are in a sense your own God's free to create your
> own reality you are exercising your delusions by arbitrarily changing
> the meaning of words, the meaning of which has been eternally fixed by
> God.

god? what is your intent with 'god'? what does 'god' mean? how do we
know it?

yadda yadda...

Ernest Major

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 9:54:35 AM10/7/07
to
In message <1191596287....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes

>Read the article to see what evolutionists thinks of everybody's
>intelligence - they view people as a bunch of morons that one can
>patronize with arrogance and condescension
>with statements like the following:
>Gravity is a "fact". Evolution is a "fact"
>
>Who do evolutionists think you are talking to?

Don't you feel the slightest twinge of conscience at your hypocrisy of
accusing people of viewing people as morons? when any prospect of
success for your whole line of rhetoric depends on people being
implausibly stupid.

Don't you realize that if you don't have a good argument for your
position you're more effective if you keep silent than if you spend your
time discrediting it with a bad argument?
--
alias Ernest Major

richardal...@googlemail.com

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 10:10:30 AM10/7/07
to
On 7 Oct, 10:25, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 9:00 am, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > > > For someone as apparently interested in language as you seem to be,
> > > > you know astonishingly little about it. The meanings of words are not
> > > > axiomatic; they change over time, sometimes subtly, sometimes
> > > > drastically, along with the spellings and pronunciations of words.
> > > The intent God has with consciousness, decisions and choices never
> > > changes.
> > Perhaps you could adduce some evidence to support this claim. Or, at
> > least, perhaps you could translate it into English as spoken by actual
> > literal human beings.
>
> You don't believe in God I do , what is there further to discuss then?

So this has nothing to do with science then.
What on earth has belief in God to do with the obvious fact that your
arguments are facile, and your posts demonstrably dishonest?

You may think that you glorify your God by lying in his name, but I
doubt that many honest believers agree with you.

<snipped>

RF

Greg Guarino

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 12:52:47 PM10/7/07
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 10:08:32 -0700, backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Then he had no right to use the word *selection* that specifically and
>only means a conscious choice. Darwin can't redefine God's language
>for him. It really is this simple, the entire debate the last 150
>years has pivoted on a simple grammatical mistake the concatenation of
>"natural" and "selection" to create a phrase that can't possibly
>exist.

You yourself have recently admitted that...

"Obviously the traits that result in more
reproduction will come to dominate the species. "

Simply put, that's what the rest of us call Natural Selection. It is
an unavoidable consequence of the rules of the biological process, and
"obvious" even to you. Saying that the process is poorly named (which
I disagree with) is of no import whatsoever. It was in place and
operating for billions of years before anyone named it.

Greg Guarino

backspace

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 2:00:43 PM10/7/07
to
On Oct 7, 6:52 pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 10:08:32 -0700, backspace
>

No, sir the traits that result in more reproduction is an observation
not an explanation as to why these traits dominate the species.

backspace

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 1:58:38 PM10/7/07
to
On Oct 7, 4:10 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> So this has nothing to do with science then.
> What on earth has belief in God to do with the obvious fact that your
> arguments are facile, and your posts demonstrably dishonest?

You have not defined science. And how could I believe anything you say
if you believe that your words are generated by atoms bouncing around
inside your head:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071003074237AAG26mw
"...Are what we call thoughts and ideas necessarily determined by the
atoms bouncing around in our heads the way atoms bounce around in
solar systems? If our minds consist of nothing more than the same
matter that makes up the rest of the universe, one may be tempted to
answer, yes. But, then the question would be, isn't that answer also
necessarily determined? And on and on it goes! If what we call
"thoughts" are necessarily determined, then words and ideas really
have no meaning, we could not have thought or acted any differently
than we did anymore than Jupiter could take a break.....

"..Well, if matter in motion is all there is, then matter in motion is
all there is! In other words, there are no elements that allow us to
draw independent conclusions, or to give real meaning to words and
sentences. If this form of atheistic cosmology it true, then the
matter in motion that makes up you and me must also act in a
necessarily determined way, as all other matter in motion must. What
we call thoughts, are nothing more than the result of atoms and
molecules bouncing around in our heads as they must according to the
laws of physics...."

"...If this is true, then it would be impossible for me not to be a
Christian; that is the way the atoms are bouncing and no one can do
anything about it. It would be impossible for an Atheist not to be an
Atheist; that is the way the atoms are bouncing in his head. This
means there is no such thing as real "thoughts," there is merely the
necessary bouncing of atoms, deterministically producing what bouncing
atoms produce...."

http://richarddawkins.net/article,194,Huw-Edwards-Interviews-Richard-Dawkins,BBC-Richard-Dawkins#1354
"....Dawkins as an atheist says he wants people to make up their own
minds. Well, if our minds consist of atoms bouncing around constrained
by the laws of chemistry and physics, we don't believe what we believe
because it is true. So Dawkins, according to his own beliefs, has to
admit that he believes what he believes not because they are true. His
atheism undercuts any attempts to utilize logic (which is immaterial
btw) and reasoning...."

http://www.google.co.za/search?as_q=mind+consists+atoms+&hl=en&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=bouncing+&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images


backspace

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 2:03:48 PM10/7/07
to
On Oct 7, 3:54 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Don't you feel the slightest twinge of conscience at your hypocrisy of
> accusing people of viewing people as morons? when any prospect of
> success for your whole line of rhetoric depends on people being
> implausibly stupid.

Do you believe that your mind consists of atoms bouncing together ? If
so then why would you have any reason to believe your mind consists of
atoms. Given your materialist premises you have to believe that your
thoughts are merely matter in motion.

Steven J.

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 2:51:01 PM10/7/07
to
On Oct 7, 4:25 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I believe we were discussing whether [a] Darwin intended, when
speaking of "natural selection," to imply that nature had desires and
beliefs, and made conscious choices, and [b] whether the meanings of
words can change over time. We were not discussing how language
evolved, or even, strictly speaking, whether language evolved at all.

For that matter, we were not, originally, discussing "God's intent
with consciousness, decisions, and choices." Even assuming that God
exists and has some intent with regard to consciousness and choice,
this does not imply that God has assigned unalterable meanings to
every word in English (again, that idea seems falsified by even a
cursory knowledge of the history of English itself). The fact that a
word once invariably implied conscious choice does not mean that this
word must do so, forever and ever.

If you believe the debate is going nowhere, why do you even bother to
post here?


>
> Gould believed his mind consisted of illusions - so why should we
> believe anything he said. Dr.Wilkins said that "...there is something
> wrong with language itself...." and thus there is something wrong with
> his language and we shouldn't believe anything he says. Jesus saying
> "...for every idle word man shall speak he will give account of..."
> indicates what Christ thought about language - since he of course is
> language in the flesh.
>

I do not know the context of Dr. Wilkins's statement that "there is
something wrong with language itself." There has, from time to time,
been something wrong with my car, which did not prevent it from taking
me from place to place. There may be something wrong with my cable
service, which prevents me from getting some channels but still allows
me to see others. It simply does not follow that if language is an
imperfect means of communication that it is a totally useless means of
communication, nor does inevitable imprecision in language imply that
you can believe nothing said in language.

You have a very idiosyncratic view of the Bible, I think. I am
familiar with the above saying of Jesus; it never occurred to me that
it was a point about linguistics or semantics, but about
responsibility for sin.


>
> Christians and Atheist need to be honest about their religious beliefs
> and stop using this undefined term "science" - nobody knows what
> science means. For materialists it is a rhetorical word that they use
> when arguing from authority
> or appealing to abstract authority. For example materialists keep on
> repeating that "science says so" and science doesn't say anything -
> there is no such person. And no matter how much this is pointed out
> them they just carry on. Why ? Because they are inventing their own
> language reality. If like some of them believe that their minds
> consists of illusions then it doesn't matter what they say. For
> example Harshman refuses to acknowledge the pragmatics, semantics,
> syntax , grammar distinction as expounded by Gitt who is a YEC with a
> PHD. The evolutionists are refusing to admit that we must always
> communicate will, motive and intent. But because their minds consists
> of illusions they don't care what intent they communicate. All they
> can agree on is that there is no God, but each motives this with
> different intent and semantics - who should I believe then?
>

No one knows what science is? Epistemological nihilism really is the
last refuge of the creationist.


>
> StevenJ how could you be so certain about your intent with natural
> selection if Chomsky says it doesn't explain language? And what is
> your intent random or non-random. Do you believe it is an effect like
> Chris Colby or a cause. But if it is an effect, what then is the
> cause.
>

I see no reason to assume that Chomsky speaks infallibly on the origin
of language, but in any case, why does our ability to use language
depend on how it arose? Natural selection is non-random. Mutations
are random, with respect to fitness in a particular environment. The
same phenomenon can be both an effect of prior causes and a cause,
itself, of future events. There is no need to trace causes back to
some presumed First Cause (or, conversely, to demonstrate an infinite
regress of causes) to demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships over
a particular finite range of time and space.

I'm pretty sure that if God exists, He wants you to end questions in
written English with a question mark.


>
> And when we try to understand the intent we realize that the
> materialists from Colby to Harshman, Wilkins, Darwin all invent their
> own intent, their own language reality. Some say it is "random" ,

> others "non-random" Seehttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/2feef56...
> for the random, non-random issue andhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c1902db...
> for the SoF issue.
>
Yet all of them agree that you are a dishonest idiot who clings
desperately to his own misunderstandings and evades clarification as
though it were a ravening wolf pack. So we see that there can be a
commonality of intent and comprehension even among materialists.


>
> > Darwin used the word "selection" (modified by the adjective "natural")
> > metaphorically,
>
> And this is precisely the problem. We mustn't you use metaphors but
> clearly state what exactly are we talking about since we have such
> confusion over this word. Dernavich made a post about his essay here:http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=89
>

You are aware, of course, that "clearly" in the above sentence is,
itself, a metaphor; sentences do not actually transmit or block
light. And, of course, this is a usenet group, in which we write to
one another; "talking" (a word that normally implies mutually audible
speech) is another metaphor in this context. Why do you litter
(another metaphor, of course) your discourse with metaphors so
promiscuously, and then recoil in sudden uncomprehending horror when
asked to accept "natural selection" as just one more metaphor?

That question was rhetorical, of course; your intent, your choice, is
to remain uncomprehending. You fear understanding, and if whining
about one more metaphor helps you fend off understanding, you will
whine.


>
> > Second, cows having calves has little or nothing to do with choice.
> > But if there are biting insects that carry a disease that affects some
> > cows and not others, cows that are resistant will have more calves
> > than cows that are vulnerable to the disease.
>
> This would be an observation, not an explanation as to why the cows
> are resistant to the disease. You are making a tautological statement.
> The best cows are the strongest cows, doesn't explain why they are the
> best, it just restates the observation after the fact.

There are many levels of explanation (Aristotle famously listed five
separate classes of explanation). Pointing out which genes contribute
to resistance, and what changes they make to biochemistry to produce
that resistance, would be one sort of explanation. Pointing out that
their ancestors were resistant, and that the trait could be inherited,
and that not all cows are resistant but that those which are leave
more descendants, is another level of explanation.

-- Steven J.


richardal...@googlemail.com

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 3:04:59 PM10/7/07
to
On 7 Oct, 18:58, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 4:10 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > So this has nothing to do with science then.
> > What on earth has belief in God to do with the obvious fact that your
> > arguments are facile, and your posts demonstrably dishonest?
>
> You have not defined science.

I don't have to. Anyone with half a brain can find out what is meant
by science.

Which does not address the fact that your posts are demonstrably
dishonest.

And just to restore the snipped part:


You may think that you glorify your God by lying in his name, but I
doubt that many honest believers agree with you.

> And how could I believe anything you say
> if you believe that your words are generated by atoms bouncing around
> inside your head:

You have no idea at all of what I believe or don't believe.

You have no idea of whether or not I believe in God.

You have no interest whatsoever in anything other than the contents of
your own head.

You are an intellectual and moral coward, and your posting history
shows that you are a blatant and unrepentant liar.

I have good reason not to believe anything you say.

It's something called evidence.

RF


<snipped>


Ken Shackleton

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 3:12:42 PM10/7/07
to

I cannot believe that anyone can be this stupid.

If a trait results in more reproduction [an advantage in reproduction
over others of the same species], then that trait will become more
common in that population with each passing generation. Over the
generations, so long as the possessors of said trait maintain an
advantage, it will be seen in an ever higher percentage of individuals
within that population.

Earle Jones

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 3:12:38 PM10/7/07
to
In article <1191734056.5...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

*
God doesn't speak English.

earle
*
"You were silent when they came and took Pluto,
Next they're coming to get Uranus."

Mark VandeWettering

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 3:43:07 PM10/7/07
to
On 2007-10-07, backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 3:54 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Don't you feel the slightest twinge of conscience at your hypocrisy of
>> accusing people of viewing people as morons? when any prospect of
>> success for your whole line of rhetoric depends on people being
>> implausibly stupid.
>
> Do you believe that your mind consists of atoms bouncing together?

Given that when the chemical reactions that we see in a living persons
brain cease, we call them dead and put them in boxes and bury them in
the ground, it seems to be a rather common conclusion, don't you think?

> If so then why would you have any reason to believe your mind consists
> of atoms. Given your materialist premises you have to believe that
> your thoughts are merely matter in motion.

What else would it be? Is there a non-material explanation of the mind?
Note: an explanation should actually explain something.

Mark

backspace

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 5:04:48 PM10/7/07
to
On Oct 7, 8:51 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:

> The fact that a word once invariably implied conscious choice does not mean that this
> word must do so, forever and ever.

Meaning is semantics. A sentence consists of syntax, grammar,
semantics in order to communicate pragmatics, intent, will or motive.
Yes, the meaning of a word can change but not the ORIGINAL intent the
author had with the word. What was the original eternal intent God had
with the words *selection* and *choice* ? If Christ himself were to
appear to you tonight and tell you that by his authority as the Logos,
the Word he formally decrees that the word *selection* and *choice*
shall always and always had meant a *conscious* decision then would
this settle the issue surrounding "natural selection" for those of you
who are Christians? Who decided that the Apocrypha is not part of the
Bible. Well we Protestants decided that it is not inspired by the Holy
Spirit by some sort of concensus agreement. So now I ask the
Christians that we should hold some sort of general council and pray
to God almighty to help us settle the issue surrounding the word
*selection* once and for all.

StevenJ a selection is a choice. And if a choice is not a conscious
goal directed decision anymore then I can't believe anything you say
because your language differs from my language. We don't have the same
semantics with
the word and thus don't communicate the same intent. Or in other words
we can't agree on a protocol and thus I can't decode your intent to me
signal receiver.

The question Ken Ham and .icr.org must answer is: Do you believe that
the original intent God had with the word "selection" an intent He
gave Adam himself could arbitrarily be changed in 1859 by somebody who
didn't know the difference between a conjecture and a theory?

Ken Shackleton

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 5:18:04 PM10/7/07
to
On Oct 7, 3:04 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 8:51 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact that a word once invariably implied conscious choice does not mean that this
> > word must do so, forever and ever.
>
> Meaning is semantics. A sentence consists of syntax, grammar,
> semantics in order to communicate pragmatics, intent, will or motive.
> Yes, the meaning of a word can change but not the ORIGINAL intent the
> author had with the word.

The only relevant meaning of a word is that which is being used in the
present context. Darwin was very clear that his use of the word
"selection" wrt Natural Selection did not imply any act of decision
making by any conscious entity.

> What was the original eternal intent God had
> with the words *selection* and *choice* ?

I had not realized that God invented these words.

> If Christ himself were to
> appear to you tonight and tell you that by his authority as the Logos,
> the Word he formally decrees that the word *selection* and *choice*
> shall always and always had meant a *conscious* decision then would
> this settle the issue surrounding "natural selection" for those of you
> who are Christians?

No.....because Jesus can use these words as He sees fit. If I [or
anyone] choose[s] to use these words in a different context and
meaning, that's too bad for Jesus; language is a fluid and ever-
changing thing.....not even the Will of God can change that.


> Who decided that the Apocrypha is not part of the
> Bible. Well we Protestants decided that it is not inspired by the Holy
> Spirit by some sort of concensus agreement. So now I ask the
> Christians that we should hold some sort of general council and pray
> to God almighty to help us settle the issue surrounding the word
> *selection* once and for all.

Impossible, and you are an idiot for suggesting that the meaning of
any word can be settled once and for all by the decree of a religious
sect.

>
> StevenJ a selection is a choice. And if a choice is not a conscious
> goal directed decision anymore then I can't believe anything you say
> because your language differs from my language. We don't have the same
> semantics with
> the word and thus don't communicate the same intent. Or in other words
> we can't agree on a protocol and thus I can't decode your intent to me
> signal receiver.
>
> The question Ken Ham and .icr.org must answer is: Do you believe that
> the original intent God had with the word "selection" an intent He
> gave Adam himself could arbitrarily be changed in 1859 by somebody who
> didn't know the difference between a conjecture and a theory?

God did not invent the word "selection", and we humans who use
language can redefine words as we collectively see fit to do so.


Iain

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 5:24:32 PM10/7/07
to
On Oct 6, 8:09 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 6, 8:01 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Then he had no right to use the word *selection*
> > Let us suppose he chose a bad word.
> > Either way...
> > Darwin explicitly stated that he did not say "selection" to mean
> > "conscious choice".
> > Darwin, stated, explicitly, that he did not say "selection" to mean
> > "conscious choice".
> > In other words, Dawin specified, explicitly that he did not mean
> > "conscious choice".
> > So, with all this in mind, what the hell is your point?
>
> That 1+1= 2 is an axiomatic statement - I can't prove it. In the same
> way *selection* is a *choice*.

No. It's not an axiom.

It is your own (wrong) description of what the word "selection" means
in English.

Let's go through this again.

Darwin said -- *without* using the word "selection" -- that he did not
mean to imply that nature itself was conscious. There is no ambiguity
there. There is no room for debate.

So, Darwin said -- *without* using the word "selection" -- that he did
not mean to imply that nature itself was conscious.

So, Darwin said, explicitly, and without ambiguity, that he did not
mean to imply that nature itself was conscious.

And how can Darwin be "brainwashed"? That doesn't make sense.
He's the _originator_ of the idea.

You, on the other hand, are exhibiting bizarre post-hypnotic behaviour
-- like that stage hypnotists' trick in which a subject is told that
left is right and right is left. They are then asked to touch their
right arm. They just go numb. When asked to explain why, they
confidently use the most topsy-turvy logic imaginable.

~Iain

backspace

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 5:31:07 PM10/7/07
to
On Oct 7, 9:43 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > If so then why would you have any reason to believe your mind consists
> > of atoms. Given your materialist premises you have to believe that
> > your thoughts are merely matter in motion.

> What else would it be? Is there a non-material explanation of the mind?
> Note: an explanation should actually explain something.

Thank you for an honest straight answer - we seem to be making
progress. We have determined what the materialists believe concerning
language itself. Without know what they believe about the words they
speak we can't decode their intent that they as signal sender send to
us signal receiver.

1) Materialists believe their words are the result of molecules
bouncing together.
2) They believe that they can change the intent with the word
*selection* and *choice* to not imply consciousness as it suites them.
3) Consciousness is an illusion created by the brain - Gould
3) There is a problem with ordinary language - Dr. Wilkins

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/cc737705dbc10c8e/877845bc2f2a4be0?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2#877845bc2f2a4be0
"...Neither term is wholly satisfactory, but not because there is a
problem with natural selection, but with ordinary *language*. This is
why NS is now a mathematical equation, which doesn't have those
problems of
implications and connotations of ordinary language. Reality is about
facts not language....."

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages