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

[Speedwell]

I believe we are talking past one another on the issue of "DNA information." To be exact, I am not speaking of the general definition of genetic information in a current living organism.

I am speaking of the information in DNA , "instructing" RNA to operate the processes of a living organism.

More specifically, I am speaking of the alleged random combination of unknown chemicals in an unknown environment, in unknown combinations, that combined in such a manner to create a living organism with all of the complicated detailed information to support and sustain that organism in healthy fashion.

Abiogenisis, in some ways akin to the ancient concept of spontaneous generation.

The question being, Where did the specific, detailed operation information come from previous to the creation of the alleged organism or at the exact time this alleged organism came alive ?

Does that make it clearer ?

To start with, it came from the organic chemicals which formed the first proto-life.

 

[HitchSlap]

Does that make it clearer ?

Yes, it’s clear to every one of us that you’re impressed by arguments from incredulity. It’s the gray area that helps justify your religious faith.

That you don’t understand ToE is not our problem. The fact you don’t think we do, is what we take issue with.

 

[Clint Edwards]

Yes, it’s clear to every one of us that you’re impressed by arguments from incredulity. It’s the gray area that helps justify your religious faith.

That you don’t understand ToE is not our problem. The fact you don’t think we do, is what we take issue with.

Interesting, please explain to me how I don't understand, and point out how my questions are based on faulty knowledge.

My knowledge is based upon two books, written by highly qualified PhD's that in the number of critical articles I have read, no where have I read they lack knowledge in defining the issue of genetic information in abiogenesis.

I have also read articles by atheist , non creationist biologists that frankly admit the reasoning is correct biologically and the question it raises is sound and to this point an unexplained problem.

Lest you contend that I am not capable of understanding what by research I have read, I have degrees in another field where the complexity of the field require the ability to be able to understand very difficult concepts. I was very successful in working in this field for 25 years.

I assure you I have presented the basic facts and posed the questions properly.

Evolutionist tactics 101, you are dismissed you don't know what we know.

Facts 101, You cannot answer the questions, you simply don't know, nor does science in general.

All you have to do is explain, without airs of superiority, without rancor the answers to the posed questions or how they don't apply to abiogenesis

An absent explanation is in itself an explanation.......................................

 

[HitchSlap]

Interesting, please explain to me how I don't understand, and point out how my questions are based on faulty knowledge.

My knowledge is based upon two books, written by highly qualified PhD's that in the number of critical articles I have read, no where have I read they lack knowledge in defining the issue of genetic information in abiogenesis.

I have also read articles by atheist , non creationist biologists that frankly admit the reasoning is correct biologically and the question it raises is sound and to this point an unexplained problem.

Lest you contend that I am not capable of understanding what by research I have read, I have degrees in another field where the complexity of the field require the ability to be able to understand very difficult concepts. I was very successful in working in this field for 25 years.

I assure you I have presented the basic facts and posed the questions properly.

Evolutionist tactics 101, you are dismissed you don't know what we know.

Facts 101, You cannot answer the questions, you simply don't know, nor does science in general.

All you have to do is explain, without airs of superiority, without rancor the answers to the posed questions or how they don't apply to abiogenesis

An absent explanation is in itself an explanation.......................................

You have admittedly just scratched the surface of ToE, and you chose to accept what you feel comports with your religion, and reject the other 99.9% that doesn’t. This, and feeling armed the “word of god,” have decided you know more than everybody else. Hubris indeed! I suggest you pipe down and ask a question, then resist your urge to fire back, and actually listen to some of the responses - you may actually learn something.

You’ve already been exposed for misrepresenting a scholarly article to supposed ID/creo, and still haven’t acknowledged it. I’m not surprise, as we’re accustomed to this kind of behavior from creo’s.

The “B***S*** asymmetry fallacy” is getting old.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, it’s clear to every one of us that you’re impressed by arguments from incredulity. It’s the gray area that helps justify your religious faith.

That you don’t understand ToE is not our problem. The fact you don’t think we do, is what we take issue with.

Science doesn't have the ability to address arguments from incredulity. For anything to evolve requires tens of thousands, perhaps millions, of small individual changes, many at the atomic level, that must successfully occur and maintain over thousands if not millions of years, surviving through disaster and cataclysm, along with all supporting environmental elements (food, water, climate, etc.). What science presents is a brief simplistic account that doesn't begin to touch the actual process that would be needed if the theory was valid, thus the incredulity.

 

[HitchSlap]

Science doesn't have the ability to address arguments from incredulity. For anything to evolve requires tens of thousands, perhaps millions, of small individual changes, many at the atomic level, that must successfully occur and maintain over thousands if not millions of years, surviving through disaster and cataclysm, along with all supporting environmental elements (food, water, climate, etc.). What science presents is a brief simplistic account that doesn't begin to touch the actual process that would be needed if the theory was valid, thus the incredulity.

“Brief” and “simplistic”?

The hubris indeed!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

“Brief” and “simplistic”?

The hubris indeed!

I meant for public consumption. Science can get pretty detailed when talking to itself. If the ToE is to be believed it cannot be taken on faith that science is correct. All must be educated thoroughly in the relative sciences so that no stone is unturned and we are all in unity about the theory (this teaching should begin in the earliest grades. As the task would be monumental all subjects not related directly to the ToE should be eliminated so full time can be devoted to the understanding of the theory).

I have no faith in science in this regard, as I have little faith in most 'experts' on most of the important matters of our day......most of which, under their leadership and expertise, are in a terrible mess.

 

[HitchSlap]

I meant for public consumption. Science can get pretty detailed when talking to itself. If the ToE is to be believed it cannot be taken on faith that science is correct. All must be educated thoroughly in the relative sciences so that no stone is unturned and we are all in unity about the theory (this teaching should begin in the earliest grades. As the task would be monumental all subjects not related directly to the ToE should be eliminated so full time can be devoted to the understanding of the theory).

I have no faith in science in this regard, as I have little faith in most 'experts' on most of the important matters of our day......most of which, under their leadership and expertise, are in a terrible mess.

And if your only objection is my (insert your personal interpretation of your favorite holy book here) says different, then you don’t get a seat at this table. Only those who add to our body of knowledge have a voice (and I don’t mean dentists who chirp about creationism here).

Sorry, but you only have two options here:

1. Accept the theory as understood by those who publish in their respective fields. Or...

2. Obtain the education necessary to contribute to a specific field.

That’s it, there’s no other option for ID/creos. Arguments from incredulity are absurd, and don’t deserve acknowledgement. And considering the abject lack of ethics from which ID was born, it’s an embarrassment for anyone who uses it.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have admittedly just scratched the surface of ToE, and you chose to accept what you feel comports with your religion, and reject the other 99.9% that doesn’t.

Does it bother you that someone who holds to A would reject B - Z on principle?

If so, I submit you don't know how faith operates.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Are there living organisms that aren't part of a species?

"species" isn't an inherent property of organisms, it's just a way of organizing them we humans invented that we have found to be useful in specific applications. Which is why your question comes off as equally silly to "are there colors without names?"

What possible difference doe it make, other than an opportunity for you to be a smarta*s ?

I would not recommend regularly trying to get around the site's censor like that. The mods wouldn't tolerate it for very long. Take it as an opportunity to get more creative and subtle with insults.

Denigration in any way possible is a favorite tool of evolutionists with those who disagree with them, isn't it ?

-_- whether or not a criticism is unfair is a bit subjective. For example, suggesting that someone is unreliable because they cheated on their spouse in 1992 would be an unfair ad hominem attack, but bringing up that a person has claimed to have academic credentials they don't actually have isn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sarah, off the record, are you familiar with a plant called the Giant Hogweed that can cause blindness and third degree burns?

 

[HitchSlap]

Does it bother you that someone who holds to A would reject B - Z on principle?

If so, I submit you don't know how faith operates.

Faith is an unreasonable position, and defended from all reason.

 

[AV1611VET]

Faith is an unreasonable position, and defended from all reason.

I'm asking about your emotional reaction to how one chooses to reject B - Z because he believes A.

 

[Ophiolite]

Does it bother you that someone who holds to A would reject B - Z on principle?

If so, I submit you don't know how faith operates.

I understand precisely how faith operates. That is why it bothers me when I see people using it to reject reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

I understand precisely how faith operates. That is why it bothers me when I see people using it to reject reality.

You're talking to the wrong person with this point.

There's more to reality than meets the eye.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

It's probably for the same reason that people misunderstand just about anything else: they either don't have the acumen to tackle hard topics or understand complex contexts, or more pragmatically speaking, they don't want to do any difficult homework. Partly, I understand some of the reluctance to make an effort to learn better since ... heck ... life can be pretty short and there's often other, more important things to do.

 

[Clint Edwards]

You have admittedly just scratched the surface of ToE, and you chose to accept what you feel comports with your religion, and reject the other 99.9% that doesn’t. This, and feeling armed the “word of god,” have decided you know more than everybody else. Hubris indeed! I suggest you pipe down and ask a question, then resist your urge to fire back, and actually listen to some of the responses - you may actually learn something.

You’ve already been exposed for misrepresenting a scholarly article to supposed ID/creo, and still haven’t acknowledged it. I’m not surprise, as we’re accustomed to this kind of behavior from creo’s.

The “B***S*** asymmetry fallacy” is getting old.

No, not at all. I am begging those with superior knowledge to simply answer the questions posed and explain the conumdrum.

All of the YOU..................... statements may reflect on me personally, as every one is intended, but it doesn't resolve the issue.

Someone who knows the answer ought to be able to share it. It isn't like secret knowledge that I have to know a silly handshake to have it shared with me, is it ?

I have never mentioned God one time, nor have I intimated that I know more, unfounded personal accusations, again.

I have asked, more than once, for those who have the knowledge that answers the questions to please answer them.

To this point I have head how ignorant I am, how I promote faith over science, how arrogant I am, and a few accusations I have probably forgotten, But still, not one response explaining how a random mixture of chemicals produce the information required to build and operate a living organism. If my concept of information is wrong, please explain how, and give me the right one as relates to the alleged precursor organism.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I am speaking of the information in DNA , "instructing" RNA to operate the processes of a living organism.

DNA doesn't do that, RNA acts on its own specific properties, which are determined by its chemical make up. If DNA was directing the RNA, sequence would be irrelevant. Heck, DNA doesn't even produce usable RNA a lot of the time; few people without an education in biology know that the nuclear membranes serves as a sort of screen that, for the most part, only functional RNA can fit through. The rejects are so malformed that they can't get out and just decay back into nucleic acids, which prevents your cells from being flooded with malformed proteins they can't break down... mostly. None of the systems in the cell are perfect.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Interesting, please explain to me how I don't understand, and point out how my questions are based on faulty knowledge.

My knowledge is based upon two books, written by highly qualified PhD's that in the number of critical articles I have read, no where have I read they lack knowledge in defining the issue of genetic information in abiogenesis.

I have also read articles by atheist , non creationist biologists that frankly admit the reasoning is correct biologically and the question it raises is sound and to this point an unexplained problem.

Lest you contend that I am not capable of understanding what by research I have read, I have degrees in another field where the complexity of the field require the ability to be able to understand very difficult concepts. I was very successful in working in this field for 25 years.

I assure you I have presented the basic facts and posed the questions properly.

Evolutionist tactics 101, you are dismissed you don't know what we know.

Facts 101, You cannot answer the questions, you simply don't know, nor does science in general.

Without actually knowing what you are talking about... it seems you are saying that scientist are recognizing this, whatever it is, as a currently unexplained problem.

Then there's your answer, isn't?
It's unexplained. Unknown. As in not yet understood properly.

Without even asking what exactly you are talking about, why is this a problem?
Obviously there's lot's of stuff we don't know yet... that's why we still train scientists- so they can try and change that.

When you are ignorant about something, the only path forward is rolling up your sleeves and getting to work to get answers.

Not stitting back and just being content with some faith based assertion...

All you have to do is explain, without airs of superiority, without rancor the answers to the posed questions or how they don't apply to abiogenesis

Abiogenesis is a work in progress.
Currently the origins of life are unknown.

Is that what you wanted to hear?

An absent explanation is in itself an explanation.......................................

Except that it isn't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I meant for public consumption. Science can get pretty detailed when talking to itself. If the ToE is to be believed it cannot be taken on faith that science is correct. All must be educated thoroughly in the relative sciences so that no stone is unturned and we are all in unity about the theory (this teaching should begin in the earliest grades. As the task would be monumental all subjects not related directly to the ToE should be eliminated so full time can be devoted to the understanding of the theory).

So basically, you want elementary school kids being educated in what currently are courses like advanced genetic doctorates at universities?

I have no faith in science in this regard, as I have little faith in most 'experts' on most of the important matters of our day......most of which, under their leadership and expertise, are in a terrible mess

Science doesn't require faith. Science is very results based.

I don't understand all the science that goes into building a plane or a nuke.
But I know planes fly and nukes explode.

That's good enough evidence for me to understand that physicists etc know what they are talking about.