Evolution and Religion

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Here you affirm that they are not new species.



Here you say that they are. The process, in domestication, has been sped up through the use of selective breeding. However, natural selection on its own has the same effect; it just takes longer to manifest. This does not constitute an argument for intelligent design, although perhaps intelligent intervention took place. There is no way to know that. What we do know is that species evolved. As I said earlier, perhaps God prodded the procees along. The process itself took place either way.

Noticed how I used "new species" in quotations?

Originally posted by loseyourname I sent you a PM about this. If you would like me to reopen it, send me a PM. I would prefer that our responses to these debates be submitted in separate threads where they will be on topic, so that we can return the soul thread to its previous topic. This has nothing to do with new powers. The thread was my thread. I have deleted threads of mine before when they went off topic and nobody complained that I was abusing that power.

Then I'll create a thread titled "Anything about God, morality, soul, etc.".

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Noticed how I used "new species" in quotations?

One cannot interbreed with the other. You need not use the quotation, as that is the definition of species.

Then I'll create a thread titled "Anything about God, morality, soul, etc.".

Please don't do that. We have several topics being discussed. One is the nature of space/time and whether or not it is objectively measurable. One is whether or not faith can give knowledge. Another is the validity of Christian faith in particular. These are separate topics. They should be in separate threads.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname One cannot interbreed with the other. You need not use the quotation, as that is the definition of species.

A dog is a dog, despite claims of "semantics" it turns into nothing more than a "dog". You see here we have a problem for evolutionists. If Darwin and Evolution depend on "natural selection", humans interfering in "artificial selection" is misleading. You cannot use the latter as evidence of the former. Plant and animal breeders employ intelligence and specialized knowledge to select breeding stock and to protect their charges from natural dangers. Darwin's theory, rather his main point was to establish that purposeless and random natural processes can substitute for intelligent design. Now this seems to be a contradiction. It's either one or the other, and this doesn't bode too well for evolution.

Originally posted by loseyourname Please don't do that. We have several topics being discussed. One is the nature of space/time and whether or not it is objectively measurable. One is whether or not faith can give knowledge. Another is the validity of Christian faith in particular. These are separate topics. They should be in separate threads.

I answered you in your old thread, Nature of God.

[dusken]

Originally posted by Anonymouse A dog is a dog, despite claims of "semantics" it turns into nothing more than a "dog".

I do not think you quite understand what a dog is. "Canine" comes from "canis"; that is a genus. You can call a lamp a dog if you like.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse A dog is a dog, despite claims of "semantics" it turns into nothing more than a "dog". You see here we have a problem for evolutionists. If Darwin and Evolution depend on "natural selection", humans interfering in "artificial selection" is misleading. You cannot use the latter as evidence of the former. Plant and animal breeders employ intelligence and specialized knowledge to select breeding stock and to protect their charges from natural dangers. Darwin's theory, rather his main point was to establish that purposeless and random natural processes can substitute for intelligent design. Now this seems to be a contradiction. It's either one or the other, and this doesn't bode too well for evolution.

I don't think you understand natural selection too well, Mousy. There isn't any contradiction between these two. I'm not sure what to say to you. I can't even fathom why you would think there is.

[Anonymouse]

There is a logical contradiction which you choose not to see and ignore, which I am sure neither you nore dusken will admit here. Natural selection is not artificial selection. What you pointed out is artificial selection, i.e. requiring intelligence. It is fundamentally different from natural selection. Au contraire, it is you who do not have an idea of what natural selection is.

Human breeders can breed animals all they want. They breed sheep, they breed pigeons, they breed dogs and produce variations among them for purposes absent in nature, including sheer delight by "playing God" in seeing how much variation can be achieved.

This contradicts natural selection, it has nothing to do with "speeding up" the process; natural selection being wholly unregulated and purposeless, whereas this requires intelligence.

[dusken]

Originally posted by Anonymouse There is a logical contradiction which you choose not to see and ignore, which I am sure neither you nore dusken will admit here. Natural selection is not artificial selection. What you pointed out is artificial selection, i.e. requiring intelligence. It is fundamentally different from natural selection. Au contraire, it is you who do not have an idea of what natural selection is.

Human breeders can breed animals all they want. They breed sheep, they breed pigeons, they breed dogs and produce variations among them for purposes absent in nature, including sheer delight by "playing God" in seeing how much variation can be achieved.

This contradicts natural selection, it has nothing to do with "speeding up" the process; natural selection being wholly unregulated and purposeless, whereas this requires intelligence.

Wasn't this addressed with the idea of the speed at which the change would occur? It requires intelligence to get it done at a certain speed. That much is obvious.

You have argued before, earlier in the thread, that it was completely impossible. The arguement on the side of the evolutionist is that it is possible and can be shown to be possible. Nobody has the luxury of observing first hand for 10,000 years if something is changing naturally or not. But one can see that it is possible and show that it can be expanded to a geater period of occured prehistory.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by dusken Wasn't this addressed with the idea of the speed at which the change would occur? It requires intelligence to get it done at a certain speed. That much is obvious.

Then, if you admit intelligence, there is no randomness, but only purpose and thus you didn't "evolve" it, but you created a new thing, since whatever humans make they "Create".

Originally posted by dusken You have argued before, earlier in the thread, that it was completely impossible. The arguement on the side of the evolutionist is that it is possible and can be shown to be possible. Nobody has the luxury of observing first hand for 10,000 years if something is changing naturally or not. But one can see that it is possible and show that it can be expanded to a geater period of occured prehistory.

What are you talking about? I never argued against intelligence. All my argument was based on the evolutionists' premise that all change is random and purposeless, without intelligence. Artificial selection shows intelligent human thought, not random mutations.

[dusken]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Then, if you admit intelligence, there is no randomness, but only purpose and thus you didn't "evolve" it, but you created a new thing, since whatever humans make they "Create".

What are you talking about? I never argued against intelligence. All my argument was based on the evolutionists' premise that all change is random and purposeless, without intelligence. Artificial selection shows intelligent human thought, not random mutations.

You are mangling my words and ideas. I do not understand what is difficult about seeing that it would take human intelligence to make something occur quickly that would normally take natural selection significantly longer to duplicate. This is very obvious. You are addressing a non-existent fallacy.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by dusken You are mangling my words and ideas. I do not understand what is difficult about seeing that it would take human intelligence to make something occur quickly that would normally take natural selection significantly longer to duplicate. This is very obvious. You are addressing a non-existent fallacy.

Why, you ask? Because it is only assumed that natural selection can accomodate all those changes and produce new species. Like I said, there is no empirical data, other than educated guesses, and hence why evolution is a theory that is desperately trying to maintain validation, and not a scientific law. Hence, intelligent interference has nothing to do with natural selection, it is a contradiction, the very antithesis of what Darwinism is about.

I don't even have to get into the "whys" of why a dog will always be a dog, and not become an elephant or anything else. Evolutionists assume that it can become more, by pointing to the faulty past of the "fossils" and saying "look they changed from fossil A to fossil B", basically assuming that they evolved since it looks so "obvious", not proving it