Why do creationists redefine and/or make up words out-of-context?

[pitabread]

I've noticed a common theme when discussing things with creationists that words are often used out-of-context. This includes words like "theory", "evolution", "Darwinism", and so on.

I've also noticed the use of evolution or atheistic as an adjective to add to various other nouns describing various forms of knowledge. I think my favorite so far was "atheistic history".

What is the point of this? Having a (proper) conversation generally means using words as they apply to a specific context. Using incorrect contextual meanings and even worse, adopting private definitions of terms doesn't lead to meaningful discussion. And I've never understood the point of fighting over a definition, as I've seen more than a few times. Especially given either the contextual usage of a word or when there exists other words/terms that more accurately describe an idea.

I also wonder what other contexts this behavior occurs in. I imagine this must also come up with political discussions as well.

 

[Snappy1]

An honest answer would probably be against forum rules.

 

[AV1611VET]

I also wonder what other contexts this behavior occurs in.

Want an example from my perspective?

Miracle gets plutoed to magic.

 

[JackRT]

I've noticed a common theme when discussing things with creationists that words are often used out-of-context. This includes words like "theory", "evolution", "Darwinism", and so on.

I've also noticed the use of evolution or atheistic as an adjective to add to various other nouns describing various forms of knowledge. I think my favorite so far was "atheistic history".

What is the point of this? Having a (proper) conversation generally means using words as they apply to a specific context. Using incorrect contextual meanings and even worse, adopting private definitions of terms doesn't lead to meaningful discussion. And I've never understood the point of fighting over a definition, as I've seen more than a few times. Especially given either the contextual usage of a word or when there exists other words/terms that more accurately describe an idea.

I also wonder what other contexts this behavior occurs in. I imagine this must also come up with political discussions as well.

In my experience most creationists and other anti-scientific types really do not understand the very theories they are so vehemently against. Scientific disciplines use technical language and oftentimes these terms are misunderstood to the point that these people feel free to generate their own meanings.

 

[AV1611VET]

In my experience most creationists and other anti-scientific types really do not understand the very theories they are so vehemently against. Scientific disciplines use technical language and oftentimes these terms are misunderstood to the point that these people feel free to generate their own meanings.

I agree 100%.

As the saying goes:

Don't argue with an academian; he will drag you down to his level, then beat you to death with experience.

But … yes … I won't argue with an academian on his turf.

If he isn't willing to accept working definitions of words in the Bible, then his terminology can take a hike too.

For instance, I try to explain that "kind" means "genus" (not "species") and get some bologna reply that scientists don't really use that word to mean anything.

Or at least that's what I interpret what they're saying.

 

[Kevin Snow]

To be fair, the point of evolution is never really clear. And too often we are all using whatever we personally think about what evolution means when we come to the discussion. I've heard countless statistics from evolutionists about the age of this or the time of that and none of it is in the least consistent. So being fair here, it happens on all sides. Maybe now you should come out with a premise of what you believe evolution to be so that the other side is clear from the beginning what is being argued.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe now you should come out with a premise of what you believe evolution to be so that the other side is clear from the beginning what is being argued.

Ya -- get ready for "descent with modification" or "change in alleles over time" or "change in the frequency of alleles over time" or some other phrase that a child can't understand -- let alone a Philadelphia lawyer.

 

[pitabread]

For instance, I try to explain that "kind" means "genus" (not "species") and get some bologna reply that scientists don't really use that word to mean anything.

This is actually another perfect example, because the use of "kind" is not at all consistent among creationists. If you ask 5 different creationists for a definition of "kind", you'll get 6 different answers.

 

[pitabread]

Ya -- get ready for "descent with modification" or "change in alleles over time" or "change in the frequency of alleles over time" or some other phrase that a child can't understand -- let alone a Philadelphia lawyer.

Why not just learn the terminology though? It's not *that* difficult.

And if does find it that difficult, they might want to re-evalute why they are even on this forum in the first place.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is actually another perfect example, because the use of "kind" is not at all consistent among creationists. If you ask 5 different creationists for a definition of "kind", you'll get 6 different answers.

But when I intone with "genus," I usually get a straight-out denial.

Even when I back it up with the online etymological dictionary.

My suggestion … if I was an academian trying to point out that the Ark was too small to house all those animals for a year … is to first find out what "kind" means to the person I'm talking to (i.e., "species" or "genus"), then tell them that there's still too many of either to fit aboard the Ark.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why not just learn the terminology though? It's not *that* difficult.

That's rich, coming from those who use "creatio ex nihilo" and "creatio ex materia" interchangeably; as if they even know what they're talking about.

How about you [guys] first learn the difference between "Satan" and "Lucifer" before you arc & spark about us?

And if does find it that difficult, they might want to re-evalute why they are even on this forum in the first place.

What?

 

[pitabread]

But when I intone with "genus," I usually get a straight-out denial.

Even when I back it up with the online etymological dictionary.

FWIW, I tried looking up the etymology of the original hebrew for the word for kind ("min") and couldn't find anything to support the idea that it means genus (per the Latin origin of the word).

My suggestion … if I was an academian trying to point out that the Ark was too small to house all those animals for a year … is to first find out what "kind" means to the person I'm talking to (i.e., "species" or "genus"), then tell them that there's still too many of either to fit aboard the Ark.

The word "kind" is usually used in an entirely different context; namely to suggest by creationists that there are biological boundaries in nature. Which again, per the use of creationists, seems to mean anything from species all the way up to kingdoms of life.

There really is no consistency of usage.

 

[pitabread]

That's rich, coming from those who use "creatio ex nihilo" and "creatio ex materia" interchangeably; as if they even know what they're talking about.

How about you [guys] first learn the difference between "Satan" and "Lucifer" before you arc & spark about us?

For the record, I don't use any of those terms.

What?

If a person can't be bothered to learn enough basic terminology for discussion on this forum (i.e. Creation & Evolution), why are they here?

 

[AV1611VET]

There really is no consistency of usage.

Is this really the right thread to start this junk again?

 

[pitabread]

Is this really the right thread to start this junk again?

You brought it up, not I.

 

[AV1611VET]

If a person can't be bothered to learn enough basic terminology for discussion on this forum (i.e. Creation & Evolution), why are they here?

The trouble is, it doesn't stay "basic" very long.

It soon gets into a word-slinging argument, with one side throwing Latin at one, and the other side throwing Greek & Hebrew at the other.

And I've seen academians pluto "child in the womb" to "fetus," then eek & ook when someone uses the term "atheistic history."

 

[pitabread]

And I've seen academians pluto "child in the womb" to "fetus," then eek & ook when someone uses the term "atheistic history."

Is there some controversy over the word "fetus"? Pretty sure that has a specific meaning and has had for a long time, also having its origin in Latin.

The reason I mention the term "atheistic history" is to be blunt, it's a term that makes no sense. History is just history, it doesn't seem some arbitrary qualifier attached to it.

 

[AV1611VET]

You brought it up, not I.

Okay … there's no consistency of usage.

What's your point?

Would you believe it if there was?

If every Christian believed in creatio ex nihilo, would you still be an agnostic?

Or would you, as I suspect, be against every Christian?

And if you think I'm being facetious, consider this:

Every single Christian ever born, living today, and will become one tomorrow believes IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

And guess what? it doesn't mean a thing to unbelievers.

 

[pitabread]

Okay … there's no consistency of usage.

What's your point?

This is a thread topic about creationists making up private definitions of words. "Kind" is a perfect example. So I thank you for that.

 

[AV1611VET]

The reason I mention the term "atheistic history" is to be blunt, it's a term that makes no sense.

Then why do I understand it, even though I never heard it before?

Ever heard of the history of Rock & Roll?

Does that make sense to you?