mark wrote
That's the point of a definition, there is a definite meaning with precise details, essential meanings, literal and common usage meanings.
So why do you still refuse to rely on dictionary definitions? Why do you still trot out your frankendefinitions, which you stitch together from your cherry-picked quotes?
Originally Posted by
Papias
/ˈdɑr
wəˌnɪz
əm/ Show Spelled[dahr-wuh-niz-uh
m] Show IPA
noun the Darwinian theory that species originate by descent, with variation, from parent forms, through the natural selection of those individuals best adapted for the reproductive success of their kind.
Darwinism: Also called Darwinian theory. It originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, including concepts which predated Darwin's theories, but subsequently referred to specific concepts of natural selection
(Darwinism, Wikipedia)
Which, as you'll notice, also refutes your frankendefition made up of cherry-picked quotes, just as the purple defintion does.
This is Darwinism from the Darwins themselves:
As pointed out at least 8 times, your practice of picking something that anyone named "Darwin" wrote, stitching them together, and thinking they make a definition, is delusional. If you want a defintion, there are these things called "dictionaries".
psst. mark, you are making up definitions again.
Making up definitions from Wikipedia, Charles and Erasmus Darwin's own words and citing the man who coined the phrase in the first place. Yea, just pulled it out of my hat.
As shown, the definition from Wikipedia refutes your point, and the frankendefinitions you made from quotes are no better than just pulling them out of your hat.
No, that's a conclusion you have in your own mind. I've asked your for actually RCC support of that, and you've failed repeatedly to give it.
We believe, then, that We have set forth with sufficient clearness the historical method of the Modernists. The philosopher leads the way, the historian follows, and then in due order come internal and textual criticism. And since it is characteristic of the first cause to communicate its virtue to secondary causes, it is quite clear that the criticism We are concerned with is an agnostic, immanentist, and evolutionist criticism.
(Encyclical of Pope Pius X On the Doctrines of Modernists 1907)
As with current writings, the RCC is clear that atheistic versions of evolution are out of bounds, just like atheistic verisions of pregnancy, or atheistic versions of gravity, or atheistic versions of anything.
We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep
(Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII)
As shown abundantly in writings such as the ones posted earlier, and roundly agreed upon by nearly everyone, this is a reiteration of the actual text, which is not intended to be seen literally. Seriously mark, you and I both know that the RCC doesn't require the text above to be seen literally.
1. Christian culture being attacked on all sides
2. men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful
5.Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things,
6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy
(Humani Generis)
Which, as I've pointed out before, is fully compatible with Theistic Evolution and our developement from chimp-like ancestors, as long as
atheistic versions of evolution are seen as fictitious and repudiated.
I gave the actual definition of Darwinism. Do you finally agree that mining old writings and stitching them together is not a way to get a defintion?
What part of the 'Darwin' in the term 'Darwinism' is too hard for you to comprehend?
Non sequiter, mark. I asked why you run from the actual defintion. I'm still waiting for an answer.
Sure it is. You obviously don't know what the words mean when you make false claims like those in these posts of yours, and it's especially telling when you refuse to simply use the dictionary definitions I've supplied.
I refused no such thing, I've used them repeatedly, just not to the exclusion of the original source of Darwinism, Charles and Erasmus Darwin.
Again, calling your stitched together quotes some kind of "definition" only shows that you still don't understand that we get definitions from dictionaries.
Then the inevitable ad hominem remarks that tell me you have nothing left:
Sorry, mark, but those are ad hominems. pointing out what your arguments contain is not an ad hom. We can go over what an actual ad hom is if you like. Hey, we could look up the defintion - you know, in a *dictionary*.
Except for a few random words ripped from their context:
-
- the part about "converging evidence"?
- How about "virtually certain"?
- How about "humanoid lineage"?
- When he says "humanOID", what you think is meant?
I'll wait for a response on those questions..........
Don't hold your breath, taking the words of the Pope out of context is against my religion.
mark, I've posted the full context many times, showing clearly that the Pope (emeritus) supports theistic evolution. We can do so again. Here it is, the full section, and so I'll still wait for a response to what part of those above you don't understand.
63. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
Sure, he makes it abundantly clear that he is talking about atheistic versions of evolution. We could together fight those much more effectively if UCA deniers didn't insist on an untenable position.
Now he turns to the empty, Darwinian Theater of the mind, speaking to rows of empty seats, Papias dramatically proclaims nothing to no one.
Well, whether this is "to no one" depends on whether or not you are listening, since I am (or thought I was) talking with you.
Oh, OK, then you are going to start using dictionary defintions? Good.
Darn. I thought you were going to use real defintions. My bad. I guess we're back to you making up definitions and ignoring the actual definitions & facts. I should have realized that by "standards" you meant "my own personal definitions".
I did, several posts ago. The difference is and has been obvious.
So, where did you post the dictionary definition for darwinism?
Still falsely equating two different things. Sad to see.
The fallacious rhetoric echos through the empty theater, followed by silence.
So I'll take that as a "no, I'm not going to start using actual dictionary defintions..."...
It's also worth noting that here it was pointed out again that you were again falsely equating two different things (again), and that you had no response.
As many of us have pointed out repeatedly (and will continue to do as long as you make your baseless claims), UCA is a conclusion, not an a priori assumption, regardless of how much you wish it were.
Universal Common Ancestry is an a priori assumption that all life is the result of natural law, not miraculous interposition. Which is the categorical rejection of God, as cause of anything, going all the way back to the Big Bang and you know it.
Wow, corrected, and your only response is to repeat the falsehood (and to nonsensically claim that I know the falsehood). I guess that's not a surprise.
Did you see the dictionary definition, or should I post it again?
Round around with the circular argument, weeeeeee....
Those dictionary definitions are pretty scary, aren't they. Just the mere mention of them, and away you go, weeeeee!
I looked, and I didn't see them. Could you please list the post number and quote were I insulted you or someone else ?
Ad hominem, circular argument combo.
No mark, it was was a simple request that you back up your claim, which it seems you still refuse to do.
Wow, that's nearly all the words in the hat! You missed "ghosts", however - maybe add that?
Oh yeah, "null". I forgot that one. More unrelated word salad. You could have avoided that by simply agreeing to use dictionary definitions, which is what the preceding statement was about.
That's what Theistic Evolution offers the Christian faith, fallacious rhetoric in place of the clear testimony of Scripture and real world definitions.
Indeed, the ghosts you chase in the fog are elusive.
Word salad, which is especially funny since you mention defitions and still refuse to use regular dictionary definitions.
However, see that you did finally use your "ghosts" phrase.
There is a reason for that, you can imagine anything you like but you can only understand the truth. Now go home so the janitor can sweep your fallacious confetti from the stage.
Have a nice day
Mark
More empty rhetoric. Oh well.
Take care-
Papias