Pretending that definitions can be just made up from hand picked and misinterpreted quotes is certainly closer to "going round and round" than simply using the dictionary. In this case, guess how a rational person finds out what the defintion of "natural selection" is? Yep, by using a "dictionary"!
So your going to play the spam game again. You ignore the Darwins in your previous definition from the Oxford Dictionary even though your purple definition specifically mentions Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection. Now your going to include an orange definition so let's see what you have this time.
natural selection
noun the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations.
Yea, that's a pretty standard definition that includes population and environmental changes and other things as factors. Then there's reproductive success, a mainstay of Darwinian Natural Selection and no where in this definition are we seeing the a priori assumption of universal common descent. It's at least an improvement.
As before, if you want a definition, use a dictionary. See above, in orange
I know what it means, what is crucial here is to separate the scientific definition and the a priori assumption you are obsessed with equivocating.
Non sequiter. I pointed out that you were now listing additional different definitions. Your insults about reading are irrelevant.
You never established that B does not follow A which means you have yet another flawed argument that never happened.
So then why, on this thread, are you going on about me using ad-hominem attacks? Nonetheless, my statement still stands - I'll apologize for any time I've insulted a person.
I apologize that I let it get to this point, if I call you on your fallacious arguments early it guts your arguments and your forced to use actual definitions and substantive resources.
Which is exactly what I was saying. Thank you for fleshing this out.
I've always known what you were trying to say, you've been lulled into a false sense of security by relying on Darwinian fallacies.
sounds like another empty insult.
Your struggling with something called resentment but it will pass, it always does.
So "dust" is not material?
Of course it is, Adam's life as created 'bara', not the physical frame which is from the earth. The clear language indicates life created 'bara', not a transition from a pre-existing life form like apes.
So the whole creation story rules out life as we know it today, because it doesn't mention cells? The point is that just because the text doesn't detail every step, we both agree there are other details there that are likely due to what the text does say.
True enough, so what?
I think we've gone over that before mark, and you claim that God doesn't act through natural laws, which as I and others have pointed out, is unscriptural.
I never said he doesn't but I'm opposed to the Darwinian version of Christian theism that insists that he must.
So do you agree now that you know of at least one (and with Pope Benedict, two) examples of Theistic Evolution supporters warning against modernism?
Theistic Evolution is Modernism.
Um, going to the dictionary again, instead of making up things......
modernism —
n modern tendencies, characteristics, thoughts, etc, or the support of thesesomething typical of contemporary life or thought See
International Style a 20th-century divergence in the arts from previous traditions, esp in architecture (
capital )
RC Church the movement at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries that sought to adapt doctrine to the supposed requirements of modern thought
Um, yea, we are going to have to expand it again as well:
Modernism: "the critique of our supernatural knowledge according to the false postulates of contemporary philosophy". (Modernism, New Advent. see 'The essential error of Modernism')
Wow, you know what that sounds like?
"All change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition." (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
Darwinism was a part of, 'the movement at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries that sought to adapt doctrine to the supposed requirements of modern thought'. Theistic Evolution does not differ from Darwinism in any meaningful way. If it did you would be subjected to the same ridicule Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents always have been, at least since the late 19th century. Until the advent of Darwinism there was no conflict of ID and Creationism with natural science and there was no such thing as Theistic Evolution. The only reason Darwinism has survived is because it's equivocated with the genuine article of science and when it can no longer do that it's exposed for the false assumption that it is.
The fact that the RC church interprets Genesis in ways compatible with theistic evolution is clear in our whole debate, and as I've pointed out before, is widely recognized by those both inside and outside the church. That's why Pope Benedict made it clear in the document given to you (multiple times) that it is Atheistic versions of evolution/UCA that he is rejecting, not UCA itself.
There is no RCC version, endorsement or acknowledgement of UCA. There is an occasional description of the theory of evolution in it's most general terms. Pope Benedict spoke forcefully against Modernism as specifically mentioned hazards and errors that are essential to Theistic Evolution if you read with warnings clearly.
You know, I've found that simply removing the long strings of insults from your posts makes them much easier to understand, and shortens them a lot.
You could save a lot more time if you would stop trying to refute definitions you are going to have no choice but to agree with. Like all Darwinians the sport of correcting errors that are not actually errors might get you a little friendly backslapping from your cohorts but it sends your arguments into a downward spiral.
You bought a lemon, that's why it keeps breaking down on you. Darwinism is riddled with flaws and faults, the most glaring is the naturalistic assumptions that have always been at the heart of Modernism, a categorical rejection of the supernatural, aka miracles. Should you come to an honest conclusion you will end up right back where it all started and find the definition has not changed.
Have a nice day
Mark
