http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2011-10/msg02062.html Ray Martinez states that under the rubric of ns we have a list of truisms asserted to be a mechanism. I make the same point in the main Tautology article namely that claims of logic are invoked as a mechanism because the universal mechanism - Life1 that spawns us into existence can't be defined under materialism.
Rolf: No, you don't have a clear image of natural selection because you don't *want* it to exist.
Ray replies: I understand natural selection to be nonsense and illogic, so yes, it is true, I don't want nonsense and illogic to be true.
Taking your two posts together you are you saying either: 1) That a truism is nonsense 2) That it is a logical fallacy to invoke claims of logic as a mechanism where the expectation for a falsifiable physics equation.
The most reasonable inference would be 2). Furthermore you mean to say that the concept of invoking truisms as mechanism which are *symbolically* represented with the contracted shorthand natural selection is a fallacy.
Now my point is this: There is nothing in the *dictionary* definition of the terms 'natural' and 'selection' that even remotely indicates your and my mutually agreed *interpretation* of *sentences* containing the term ns. Hence the meaning we derive from a sentence is context dependent.
Natural selection as oxymoronic stand-alone term, can be no more a fallacy than the stand alone Pleonasm terms 'black darkness' or 'free gift' are , because only *sentences can be fallacies, tautologies or illogical.
Is the contention that "free gift2" is a tautologytrue? . To assert that such a phrase always says the same thing twice is to miss-frame the particular premise of a user. For example: A man's gift of a dinner and a movie to his date may be a "gift2" but it sometimes comes bundled with expectations. But, if the recipient of the free dinner asks first "if I go with you, are you expecting anything?" and gets the answer "no", then it's accurate to say the invitee got a "free gift" of dinner. It is incorrect that no gift can ever have non-free implications attached to it, therefore the term free-gift is a Pleonasm and not a tautology: only sentences can be tautologies.
A tautology explains everything under all conditions,from the man providing a 'free-gift' it is clear that the same sentence could in another context imply non-reciprocating behavior from the person receiving the gift. Thus the sentence doesn't explain everything in all contexts.
By analogy take the sentence 'you have a green light' from Pragmatics: depending on the premise it could mean anything, it doesn't explain everything in all contexts. In fact devoid of a human premise or intent it explains @nothing@. Contradictions like oxymorons explain nothing. Oxymorons have the sense of explaining nothing because they have the sense of being contradictory. Pleonasm has the sense of explaining everything because in the majority of sentences they are used in, the sentence explains everything under all conditions(tautological).
Only the premise by the human formulator of a sentence can be definitely asserted(no "sense") to be either all explaining or contradictory. But because only sentences - meaning the premise behind the sentence - can be either contradictions(explains nothing) or tautologies(explain everything) , it has lead people to erroneously view pleonasms as tautologies.
Therefore an oxymoron isn't a contradiction because only the premise symbolically represented with a sentence can be a contradiction: it(oxymoron) has the sense of being a contradiction.
Finally: Pleonasms have the sense of being tautologies but are not because only a human premise can be all explanatory. Oxymorons have the sense of being contradictions but are not because only a human premise can be a contradiction.
Reference: See http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Premise
reply to ray
> For the record: Of course I read you too and have created many > unaswered messages. And like yourself, I owe replies to several other > members. And I read everyone. I answer messages that present the > greatest threat to my viewpoints. Since Dana argues "Christian- > Evolutionism" as good as anyone, this is why I respond. Probably the > greatest threat to Christianity and Bible is "Christian-Evolutionism." > It seeks to destroy our Faith from within. So this is why I answer > Dana and several others who seek to destroy Bible and Christianity.
> It could be said, Stephan, that since you accept natural selection and > microevolution you are an unwitting victim of the atheistic "Christian- > Evolutionism" agenda.
Accepting Natural selection - depends what you mean with natural selection? At http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki I refer to those conjuring up dead tautologies - natural selection - as *semiotic necromancers*. Thus I don't understand how you could say I accept the tautological narrative for which natural selection is a metaphor.
Note that by Natural selection I mean :..... the Malthusian, Matthew, Lamarcian, Erasmus Darwinian natural(unintentional) means of competitive preservation(selection) in the struggle for life. .... Both you and Nyikos has demonstrated how this principle is post-hoc because we would be told the same story if the other creature came to dominate its ecological niche. This claim of logic is phrased within the Adaptationist premise, which I as a YEC object to because information is never acquired, only expressed. See http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Adaptation
Please quote from my wiki where I in any way *accept* the ludicrous nonsense that is natural selection. The conclusion namely acquisition of attributes does not derive logically from the tautology that is natural selection(natural means of preservation).
My entire world view is framed in terms of the http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design premise. Therefore 'natural selection' the oxymoron can be no more a tautology than the pleonasm free gift as I showed at http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Preferential_decision.
Martinez on Dawkins
- "......If you take the time to read Dawkins very closely (and I have),following his context,*** he does not actually say or admit that he himself accepts, along with science, existence of an appearance of
design. What he actually says, is, IF anyone claims to see an appearance of design THEN it must be a by-product of the power of selection. Dawkins is saying: "Look, we know for a fact that the law of natural selection exists; and we have yet to discover any evidence supporting the existence of God; therefore those who see an appearance of design the same must be a product of a powerful selection process." He concludes that said appearance is an illusion, which provides him and his colleagues the safe harbor of being able to say "we don't see it." ............" When you read Dawkins closely, this is what he is saying