Evolution and Religion

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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 [B]A dog is a dog, maybe different in characteristics, but nonetheless a dog. Such trivial examples are all brushed under the effect of "evolution" when its all a tautology and a confusion of semantics.

Here you affirm that they are not new species.

Furthermore, you are just confirming that intelligence can create "new species", as man is intelligent and is taking control of those below him and creating "new species". This is a perfect argument for intelligent design.

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.

By the way, I love how you used youre new powers to close the soul thread loser before I can submit my response.

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.

[dusken]

Originally posted by Anonymouse A dog is a dog, maybe different in characteristics, but nonetheless a dog. Such trivial examples are all brushed under the effect of "evolution" when its all a tautology and a confusion of semantics.

Furthermore, you are just confirming that intelligence can create "new species", as man is intelligent and is taking control of those below him and creating "new species". This is a perfect argument for intelligent design.

By the way, I love how you used youre new powers to close the soul thread loser before I can submit my response.

I am sure you enjoy the word but I have not seen a single tautology in this thread.

Intelligence interferes to speed up the process.

Lose mentioned, and you still ignore, that intelligent interference is not excluded from the idea of evolution.

And the example about dogs was used because he is implying that they are of a different species and of the same genus. They cannot not mate in such an instance.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname It makes little difference whether or not you say there were new species. There were. A domesticated dog is distinct from the wild dog that it came from, as a domesticated cat is distinct from the wild cat that it came from, as a domesticated cow is distinct from the wild cow that it came from. They are different species. You are barking up the wrong tree here. You have better arguments than this, I'm sure.

A dog is a dog, maybe different in characteristics, but nonetheless a dog. Such trivial examples are all brushed under the effect of "evolution" when its all a tautology and a confusion of semantics.

Furthermore, you are just confirming that intelligence can create "new species", as man is intelligent and is taking control of those below him and creating "new species". This is a perfect argument for intelligent design.

By the way, I love how you used youre new powers to close the soul thread loser before I can submit my response.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse There are no different species. I've already addressed the issue of bacterias, moths. If you scroll back far enough and read my tediously boring posts, you'll see I mention that. It's nothing new. This argument is the only thing people such as Futuyma rely on as the most compelling evidence for evolution, which I dont' buy for one bit.

It makes little difference whether or not you say there were new species. There were. A domesticated dog is distinct from the wild dog that it came from, as a domesticated cat is distinct from the wild cat that it came from, as a domesticated cow is distinct from the wild cow that it came from. They are different species. You are barking up the wrong tree here. You have better arguments than this, I'm sure.

[Anonymouse]

There are no different species. I've already addressed the issue of bacterias, moths. If you scroll back far enough and read my tediously boring posts, you'll see I mention that. It's nothing new. This argument is the only thing people such as Futuyma rely on as the most compelling evidence for evolution, which I dont' buy for one bit.

Where the confusion of "evolution" arises is essentially its semantics.