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

[DogmaHunter]

I'll pass.

Then you'll continue to be called on it whenever you wish to obfuscate points by using unscientific terms to discuss a scientific topic.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We do.

There goes just about any science that underpins the mechanics of the device you are currently using to discuss this topic at light speed.

In fact, there goes the idea of light speed.

You don't have that luxury.

Indeed. I'm doomed to actually having to think and be intellectually honest.

You're obligated to the scientific method.

Or reason and rationality.

Else you'll commit your own unpardonable sin.

I don't subscribe to such concepts.

Although I do think that being wilfully ignorant is surely a type of evil.

 

[Clint Edwards]

And I suppose for all those years you have been using the same disingenuous, passive-aggessive, unscientific, sneaky rhetoric of trying to associate abiogenesis with evolution. And then the OP wonders why evolutionists wind up attacking the Creationist. It's because of reprehensible, dishonest, in-your-face prevarication of this type.

Don';t accuse ME of actions or words, either directly or indirectly in a sneaky disingenuous manner of something you have NO KNOWLEDGE I have employed.

Darwin himself in some of his letters and essay's stated that the evolutionary process had to be linked to abiogenesis.

Nevertheless, since macro evolutionists want to present their theory as fact, and they know abiogenesis is indefensible, they stridently bifurcate the two. Macro evolution is shaky, add abiogenesis and it is dead.

So, I play the wink,wink game with them, I discuss abiogenesis and macro evolution separately. That way their hysteria is minimized, that way THEIR facade is maintained, and they can ignore the gorilla in the room and I can look at him and his funny clothes, and laugh.

I think you simply need to calm down, if your post is representative of your mind processes, your health is in danger.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The sad thing is that I think most (if not all) of the 'professional' creationists do know how scientists use these words. But they lie for the benefit of the people who trust them to provide a method of 'slaying' evolution. And then who will the laymen believe? The person who confirms their biases, or the person trying to explain how science really works (even if they are themselves Christian). These persistent deceptions make it harder for the truth to take hold.

Yep.

And meanwhile, "professional" creationists are swimming in the Benjamins that they gathered by selling books, dvd's and giving "seminares". And some of them will also safeguard those Benjamins by starting their own ministry and thereby avoiding to pay taxes.

 

[Clint Edwards]

Another fine example of what the OP is talking, but then in terms of "scope" instead of terminology.

The continued insistence that abiogenesis is somehow an essential part of evolution theory while it really isn't and while it has been pointed out thousands of times that it isn't.

Yet, creationists stubbornly insist on getting it wrong.



"forced" to admit...
Lol.

Intellectually honest people don't have any issues with acknowledging ignorance on subjects they are ignorant about, you know...



Except of the part where you think it's relevant to evolution theory, that is.

As I have stated in another post, Darwin himself in some writings linked abiogenesis to evolution. After all, isn't non living chemicals combining to produce live an evolutionary process in itself ?

Nevertheless, I discuss abiogenesis, as abiogenesis, and macro evolution as macro evolution. That way, their illusion that they aren't logically linked is maintained.

Don';t extrapolate and state as fact what I do, when you don't know, at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Don';t accuse ME of actions or words, either directly or indirectly in a sneaky disingenuous manner of something you have NO KNOWLEDGE I have employed.

He was responding to what you said. It's not the first time we do this, you know.

Darwin himself in some of his letters and essay's stated that the evolutionary process had to be linked to abiogenesis.

Another thing creationists don't seem to understand, is that in science there's no such thing as "unquestionable holy scripture".

Darwin is not an infallible science saint that has to be worshipped and evolution is not a "doctrine" that needs to be upheld in its original form at all costs.

Darwin was wrong about lots of stuff.
If Darwin said what you claim he said, then Darwin was wrong about that too.

Also, it's 2018. Darwin's ideas are a tiny bit outdated.
You might want to update your knowledge of evolutionary biology. Lots of progress and discoveries have been made the past 200 years.

Nevertheless, since macro evolutionists

Ow look, another made up term.
And in fact, somewhat surprisingly, this seems to be a new one. I've heared of "macro evolution" before, but a "macro evolutionists"? That's new to me.

want to present their theory as fact

Theories aren't facts. Theories explain facts. Facts support theories.
Some basic science education will make that clear to you rather quickly.

, and they know abiogenesis is indefensible

Abiogenesis is a different scientific field and a work in progress.
Nobody is claiming that that puzzle has been solved.

That way their hysteria is minimized, that way THEIR facade is maintained, and they can ignore the gorilla in the room and I can look at him and his funny clothes, and laugh.

And now, you're crossing over into that passive-aggresive arrogance that Ophiolite was talking about.

I think you simply need to calm down, if your post is representative of your mind processes, your health is in danger.

I think you need to first inform yourself on the scientific subjects before trying to argue against them.

 

[Ophiolite]

Don';t accuse ME of actions or words, either directly or indirectly in a sneaky disingenuous manner of something you have NO KNOWLEDGE I have employed.

You employed it in the post I responded to. You boasted about doing so. The evidence is there.

Darwin himself in some of his letters and essay's stated that the evolutionary process had to be linked to abiogenesis.

Clearly without a lifeform to act upon the evolutionary process cannot occur and therefore there is link. However, as I am sure you are fully aware, if it was demonstrated tomorrow that the first lifeform was created it would not require any adjustment to evolutionary theory.

Nevertheless, since macro evolutionists want to present their theory as fact, and they know abiogenesis is indefensible, they stridently bifurcate the two. Macro evolution is shaky, add abiogenesis and it is dead.

Ludicrous, unsubstantiated, self-delusional nonsense.

So, I play the wink,wink game with them, I discuss abiogenesis and macro evolution separately. That way their hysteria is minimized, that way THEIR facade is maintained, and they can ignore the gorilla in the room and I can look at him and his funny clothes, and laugh.

And there again is your snide, passive-aggessive, disrespectful, unscientific distasteful game playing. Shame on you.

I think you simply need to calm down, if your post is representative of your mind processes, your health is in danger.

If your post is representative of your mind processes your moral fibre is in danger.

Discussion ended.

 

[Clint Edwards]

Does it ever. to the point of redefining the meanings of the words marriage, minority, he, she, right, etc. Political discussion far outstrips anything within the debate over evolution vs creation when it comes to insisting that a personally preferred, previously unknown definition must be accepted by the opposing side as the authoritative one.

When people argue issues based upon completely different sets of basic assumptions they not only waste their time but they also become frustrated and can reach the erroneous conclusion that those opposing them are just evil or stupid. If one understands that the problem is not that the other side is illogical, lacking intelligence or malevolent but simply begins from a different POV and set of basic assumptions one can then have a civil debate even if one cannot come to agreement. They cannot agree because there is no way, through argumentation, to divest a person of their POV which is based upon their set of basic assumptions. For instance, if one assumes that humans are basically good, there is not train of logical argument based upon the assumption that humans are not basically good that will be convincing to that person. The only argument that will be convincing to that person is one that also assumes the basic goodness of human beings.

When the conclusion of an argument contradicts a basic assumption a person will inevitably reject the argument that comes to such a conclusion as being flawed. Two completely logically flawless arguments on a subject can reach contradictory conclusions because they start from contradictory sets of basic assumptions. So it may well be that an opposing argument is not flawed but rather that the basic assumptions cannot be reconciled.

Your point about manipulation of the language and it's historical usage is an excellent point. I am sure that you have read Orwell's "1984" and you know that big brother loved this methodology. Nothing means anything but what you are told it means. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, et.al. used the method, as do their current acolytes, the so called "progressives".

Science discussions require the language of science. Those who try and manipulate and change it, no matter how noble the reason, are no better.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

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.

I think its because creationists are generally smarter, and sometimes, evolutionists take a little while to catch on to the specific meanings of the terms they use. Evolutionists are really just trained to recite theories parrot-fashion, whilst true creationist debaters are trained to think critically.

Similar (but deliberately devious, rather than intellectually superior) behaviour is observed by evolutionists and their own definition of evolution, which they claim to be "microbes to man" when preaching to their own disciples indoctrinated into evolutionism, yet when challenged by a creationist, suddenly change the meaning to "change over time" or "change in frequency of alleles".

 

[DogmaHunter]

As I have stated in another post, Darwin himself in some writings linked abiogenesis to evolution

As I said in reply to that post: if that is true, then Darwin was wrong.
See, in science, one does not hold up some scientist and/or an idea as being infallible dogmatic doctrine that must be upheld.

That's the neat thing about science: there are no authorities and nothing is unquestionable. It's how we make progress.

After all, isn't non living chemicals combining to produce live an evolutionary process in itself ?

No.
Evolution is about a process that existing life is subject to.
It only starts after life exists.

Nevertheless, I discuss abiogenesis, as abiogenesis, and macro evolution as macro evolution.

Okay, you've mentioned it enough times now, so I'll bite on that one as well...
You singling out "macro evolution", as if it is somehow different from "micro evolution", is another case of strawmanning the theory.

And you know it.
I'm sure you know it because I'll bet thousands of dollars that people have been pointing that out to you many times as well. So you know this. People have informed you about it.

Yet, like all creationists that engage in these practices, you insist on getting it wrong.

That way, their illusion that they aren't logically linked is maintained.

No matter with how many arrogance you can state such, the fact remains that abiogenesis is not within the scope of explanation of evolution theory.

One deals with the origins of life and the other deals with development of existing life.
It is what it is. And not what it isn't.

Don';t extrapolate and state as fact what I do, when you don't know, at all.

You have made it crystal clear in these posts what it is that you do.

And @Ophiolite seems to be bang on the money.

 

[pitabread]

Macro evolution is shaky

If we're talking about "macro evolution" referring to the diversification of higher taxa, I'd say it's anything but shaky. Just the genetic evidence alone is overwhelming.

add abiogenesis and it is dead.

Hardly. There has been a lot of interesting origin of life research in the last couple of decades (remember, it's still a comparatively young field compared to a lot of other sciences). If I were a creationist, I wouldn't cling too strongly to abiogenesis being a gap in which to argue against evolution.

 

[Clint Edwards]

He was responding to what you said. It's not the first time we do this, you know.



Another thing creationists don't seem to understand, is that in science there's no such thing as "unquestionable holy scripture".

Darwin is not an infallible science saint that has to be worshipped and evolution is not a "doctrine" that needs to be upheld in its original form at all costs.

Darwin was wrong about lots of stuff.
If Darwin said what you claim he said, then Darwin was wrong about that too.

Also, it's 2018. Darwin's ideas are a tiny bit outdated.
You might want to update your knowledge of evolutionary biology. Lots of progress and discoveries have been made the past 200 years.



Ow look, another made up term.
And in fact, somewhat surprisingly, this seems to be a new one. I've heared of "macro evolution" before, but a "macro evolutionists"? That's new to me.



Theories aren't facts. Theories explain facts. Facts support theories.
Some basic science education will make that clear to you rather quickly.



Abiogenesis is a different scientific field and a work in progress.
Nobody is claiming that that puzzle has been solved.



And now, you're crossing over into that passive-aggresive arrogance that Ophiolite was talking about.



I think you need to first inform yourself on the scientific subjects before trying to argue against them.

Once again, you are making ASS UMPTIONS that aren't warranted. Did I SAY that Darwins idea's are scientifically binding TODAY ? NO ! You just assumed it and stated it as fact.

Did I say that evolution study was locked into a a dogmatic set of "scriptures", NO ! You assumed I did to support your attempt to denigrate my knowledge and reasoning ability. A typical evolutionist tactic, plying the "I am superior, you are educationally and intellectually inferior" card. This tactic is apparent throughout your post. Evolutionists just love to attack those who disagree with them with subtle ad hominems. Destroy the persons credibility, the argument is de facto destroyed. It is all disingenuous tactical bulls**t.

I would suggest that unless you are a biologist, microbiologist, or bio chemist, my scientific knowledge is equal to your, so drop the "I am superior" crap. Also drop the assuming what I say then state it as a fact of what I said.

Yes, the terms I used were "made up", they were made up by a Russian atheist evolutionary biologist in a paper written in Germany in 1926. I am surprised that someone with your vast knowledge didn't know this.

 

[Ophiolite]

Similar (but deliberately devious, rather than intellectually superior) behaviour is observed by evolutionists and their own definition of evolution, which they claim to be "microbes to man" when preaching to their own disciples indoctrinated into evolutionism, yet when challenged by a creationist, suddenly change the meaning to "change over time" or "change in frequency of alleles".

What a silly statement. The majority of biologists have no interest in man. I know that the vast majority of palaeontologists aren't even interested in vertebrates. While microbiologists generally disregard anything that is boring enough to be multi-cellular. The microbes to man meme is a Creationist invention and reflects an anthropocentric viewpoint that any sensible scientist would promptly disown.

 

[Clint Edwards]

Recent genetic research has created a significant problem for macro evolution ( a term first used by an evolutionary biologist in 1926). A group of well respected geneticists (not creationist geneticists) in a long term recently published study, has concluded that all taxa extremely quickly came unto existence at about the same time. Further, they concluded that the genetic record does not support the "millions and millions of years" concept of evolution.

Another study found that within the genetic record there are simply not enough readily changeable genes to support the idea of an organism classed in one family evolving into an organism of another family. The potential for that massive change isn't in the genetic makeup of organisms.

Actually, the discovery of extremely complicated operational and integrated information that must be present for even the simplest organism to exist. Where did the information come from for that first organism to operate ? How could an organism self created create that complicated encoded information and itself to read to code at the same time ?

Yes, right now the research is primarily in the chemistry and bio chemistry area,m but far, far away from anything remotely conclusive.

 

[Jimmy D]

Recent genetic research has created a significant problem for macro evolution ( a term first used by an evolutionary biologist in 1926). A group of well respected geneticists (not creationist geneticists) in a long term recently published study, has concluded that all taxa extremely quickly came unto existence at about the same time. Further, they concluded that the genetic record does not support the "millions and millions of years" concept of evolution.

Another study found that within the genetic record there are simply not enough readily changeable genes to support the idea of an organism classed in one family evolving into an organism of another family. The potential for that massive change isn't in the genetic makeup of organisms.

It would be helpful if you would provide links to the studies you refer to.

 

[Clint Edwards]

You employed it in the post I responded to. You boasted about doing so. The evidence is there.

Clearly without a lifeform to act upon the evolutionary process cannot occur and therefore there is link. However, as I am sure you are fully aware, if it was demonstrated tomorrow that the first lifeform was created it would not require any adjustment to evolutionary theory.

Ludicrous, unsubstantiated, self-delusional nonsense.

And there again is your snide, passive-aggessive, disrespectful, unscientific distasteful game playing. Shame on you.

If your post is representative of your mind processes your moral fibre is in danger.

Discussion ended.

Really ?, ludicrous, unsubstantiated, self delusional nonsense. Really ? You made the statements, that don't mean much without evidence, provide it. What did I employ ? I made it clear I debate evolutionists on their own ground, I made it clear I debate those who believe in abiogenesis on their own ground. My view is irrelevant as long as I stay within the confines the evolutionists demand,. I do this in deference to their sensitivities.

You are now moving the goalposts. It is no longer what the ignorant creationists do in discussions, it is now what I , and ignorant supporter of intelligent design, believe. If I don't mix the two in discussion on the topics, which is what this thread is about, why are you so worried about what I believe ?

You then switch again to morality. From an evolutionary viewpoint, a rather esoteric and foggy concept.

Sorry, but I do not believe as you do. I can support my positions using scientific principles. That bothers you. You have discovered that there are tens of thousands of us that can use scientific methodology and language to support our views. That shatters your cherished stereotype. I know how it feels. I once had a very lengthy discussion with and atheist evolutionist who was kind, calm, non condemning, who did not use adhominems, and simply talked about the issues. I was shocked. I have run into others like that since. They aren't all hysterical character assassins like Richard Dawkins.

I got over the shock, you will too.

 

[HitchSlap]

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.

Because this is the best they have...

 

[pitabread]

A group of well respected geneticists (not creationist geneticists) in a long term recently published study, has concluded that all taxa extremely quickly came unto existence at about the same time. Further, they concluded that the genetic record does not support the "millions and millions of years" concept of evolution.

I know exactly what study you are referring to and neither of these claims are true. The study itself is a bit problematic for a few reasons, but some of the articles written about it have actually distorted a lot of what it stated to begin with (which seems to happen a lot with journalistic reporting of science). Your reference to that study is a perfect example of this distortion.

Either way, it's not the issue some are making it out to be and isn't overturning existing knowledge of the history of life on Earth.

Another study found that within the genetic record there are simply not enough readily changeable genes to support the idea of an organism classed in one family evolving into an organism of another family. The potential for that massive change isn't in the genetic makeup of organisms.

Do you have a source for this?

It's also an odd claim because organisms don't evolve from one family to another family to begin with. Evolution isn't horizontal; it's vertical.

Actually, the discovery of extremely complicated operational and integrated information that must be present for even the simplest organism to exist. Where did the information come from for that first organism to operate ? How could an organism self created create that complicated encoded information and itself to read to code at the same time

This is just a Discovery Institute talking point that unfortunately isn't actually the problem they make it out to be. The biggest problem is they play fast and loose with defining "information"; but by all applicable definitions of information as it applies to genetics, there are no issues with how said information arises via the process of evolution.

 

[HitchSlap]

Unfortunately, these are the cdesign proponentsists that most YEC'ers look to for info.

 

[Clint Edwards]

I know exactly what study you are referring to and neither of these claims are true. The study itself is a bit problematic for a few reasons, but some of the articles written about it have actually distorted a lot of what it stated to begin with (which seems to happen a lot with journalistic reporting of science). Your reference to that study is a perfect example of this distortion.

Either way, it's not the issue some are making it out to be and isn't overturning existing knowledge of the history of life on Earth.



Do you have a source for this?

It's also an odd claim because organisms don't evolve from one family to another family to begin with. Evolution isn't horizontal; it's vertical.



This is just a Discovery Institute talking point that unfortunately isn't actually the problem they make it out to be. The biggest problem is they play fast and loose with defining "information"; but by all applicable definitions of information as it applies to genetics, there are no issues with how said information arises via the process of evolution.

I read the paper in "human evolution". in it, the authors state that A) 90% of all living organisms came into existence in the last 500,000 years.

B) Between there is virtually no "in between link" genetically between differently classed organisms. There are many other interesting findings. Read it for yourself.

With the deepest respect, your knowledge of genetic information is lacking. Further I wasn't talking about evolution, I was talking about abiogenesis.

Any organism ( some viruses are different, they have no DNA but must parasatize DNA for reproduction from other organisms) need specific and detailed information to live. Information is something that can lead to two or more outcomes. Gravity isn't about information, it always works in exactly the same way.

A simple and accurate metaphor is a computer. The computer is the physical organism, the software is the genetic information that allows the organism to live and operate. The software isn't random, it is incredibly complex, and the computer is built to read and "understand" the software, and operate as it is instructed by the software.

It is virtually the same for an organism, except that the communication and operation in a computer uses electricity, the cell uses proteins and other chemicals.

Even the simplest organism is much more complex than a computer.

A cell, an organism, multiple cells, an organism operates by the use of bits of information in incredibly detailed order which communicates with the cell through a process specific to that organism which takes the information, reads it, then operates the cell perfectly for it to survive and reproduce.

These chains of encoded information, encoded specifically for that organisms "reader" are in chains of thousands of bits of information, even one bit out of the correct order, or missing, the organism cannot exist.

So, in our lauded precursor organism from which all living things came, where did the information required for it to operate come from ? It couldn't have made it itself because it could not exist without it, and how would it know what it needs to know to operate without the information in the chains of genetic information to tell it ?

The old idea of a simple organism operating as a result of one way chemicals reactions has been blown to pieces.

Genetic research discovering the ever deeper complication of even the simplest organism and the required detailed, specific, incredibly complex encoded information required for it to exist cannot be demonstrated as a result of random chemical reaction at this point this appears impossible.

Because of required specific information, that precursor cell could not exist. That might change, but to cling to that cell and the possibility it might change is a matter of faith not science.

As Sir Fed Hoyle, an atheist, a highly acclaimed mathematician, said when discussing abiogenesis, "how many tornado's are required in how long a period of in an airplane junkyard to create a perfectly functional and flying airplane ?"