The Case for Theism

[genkaus]

My point is it doesn't matter what we call the process, it will still be the same thing that it is. Our choice of label serves only us not the thing itself.

And my point is that it is precisely because the choice of label serves us that it does matter. Without a label used consistently it'd be impossible to have a meaningful discussion.

While you are quite right in saying 'selection' can occur only from a 'pre-existing set', you have used a narrow semantic definition to obfuscate the fact that what this brings into existence a change in conditions. It is this change in conditions that becomes the new initiation point for the next change in the system, and so on, each individual occurance having a microscopic but essential impact on the overall process.

I'm using the narrow semantic definition to root out the possibility of obfuscation. In scientific terms, the phrase natural selection is used describe an aspect of evolutionary process which in turn applies to changes in living entities over time. What it does not apply to is the origin of life. That the term was used as a label for that particular process is not a whim - it makes semantic sense as even if you don't know anything about it, you still can get an idea of what it'd mean based what those words themselves mean. Now, either my opponent is actually ignorant of what the term means - in which case a simple semantic argument suffices to indicate where he might be wrong or he is being deliberately deceptive - in which case no amount of argument would matter.

That is one approach but then you are argueing the person and not the point.

That's because I don't see a point to be argued.

I'd agree that 'natural selection' is probably not the best use of phrase to describe the continually changing conditions that ultimately gave rise to the fundamental chemical compositions of what we call 'life', and you could have pointed out that 'natural selection' is a phrase used frequently for the evolutionary process of life forms and not the emergence of life from inorganic chemistry, but it's not nonsensical.

Now this is interesting. Your statement regarding the continually changing conditions that give rise to chemical compositions of life seems to imply that you know more the origin of life than subscribing to a simple hypothesis. Your statement about how the term 'natural selection' may be applicable to that also indicates a certain understanding of the case. Tell me more.