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

[Clint Edwards]

lol

Word

 

[Non sequitur]

Then tell us ln the fewest words possible How and When mindless Nature installed the highest form of intelligence into anything, since mindless Nature is neutral, having no force to accomplish anything and having NO intelligence to impart. Magic is the only way such a thing could possibly happen and also WHY it can never be repeated.

Nature doesn't "install" things.

Nobody can say it it can't be repeated.

 

[Speedwell]

I don´t know what information is, so, just enlighten me. So, biochemicals create information, OK, lets explore that. Two, or a hundred chemicals reacting together can create information, and the process by which that information is used so that various possible options of chemical reactions are controlled by time, and environment. Further, this information is created so that one chemical reaction supports another, does not hinder another, and many, many chemical reactions work together in extremely complex ways to support a living cell.

"Information" is a way of mathematically characterizing patterns which occur in material phenomena. All chemical compounds, from the simplest inorganic compounds to the most complex biochemical molecules, can be describe in terms of information. Here is a survey paper which will give you an introduction:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10911/1/What_is_Shannon_Information.pdf

Since the precursor organism did not inherit this information, no long strands of encoded DNA, no predetermined mechanism to utilize this information, this functioning organism was the result of random chemical reactions that coming together, somehow, somewhere in just the right environment developed all the that perfectly suited the precursor organism so that all its various functions were co ordinated, randomly, by blind chemical reactions, to produce a living organism.

OK ! Got it !

You seem to be assuming that the first living things were substantially similar to modern cells or single-celled organisms, with "long strands of encoded DNA" and all the functionality of a modern cell. There is no scientific reason for such an assumption.

I define life exactly as your Jr Hi biology teacher did

Correct. Life is that which exhibits the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond to stimuli and replicate.

 

[Clint Edwards]

I don't see why you would think that. With regard to abiogenesis "we don't know", but we are looking. Perhaps some light reading?

Credit to /u/maskedman3d on reddit for compiling this list of sources for some of the work being done with regard to abiogenesis

___________________
Early Earth Chemistry:
___________________

• On the early chemical history of the Earth and the origin of life. By Harold C. Urey
• Physical conditions on the early Earth
• Analysis of early atmosphere chemistry from zircon crystals.

• New research from the University of Maryland, the University of St. Andrews, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the University of Leeds and the Blue Marble Space Institute of Science suggests that long ago, Earth's atmosphere spent about a million years filled with a methane-rich haze.
• CH4 in the prebiotic atmosphere would have permitted formation of HCN, Hydrogen cyanide
• Amino acids could have been synthesized in prebiotic atmospheres containing CH4, CO, and CO2

____
RNA:
____

• Triplet substrates allow the ribozyme to synthesise its own catalytic subunit '+' and '-' strands in segments and assemble them into a new active ribozyme.

• Quantitative measurements of reaction rates show that RNA can be as efficient a catalyst as protein.

___
Amino Acids:
___

• Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self-replication through a hypercyclic network.

_______________________________
Lipids, cell membranes and protocells:
_______________________________

• Self-assembling surfactant structures may consequently provide a model system for studies of prebiotic chemistry.

• Thermodynamically controlled peptide binding of lipid vesicles is possible, thus leading to an increase in the molecular complexity of lipid vesicles.

• Formation of lipid compounds during Fischer-Tropsch-type synthesis from aqueous solutions of formic acid or oxalic acid.

• Membrane domains may therefore provide the link between protocells and the RNA/DNA-world.

___
Metabolism:
___

• rTCA is network-autocatalytic from any of its species implies that opportune condensations into the cycle from smaller molecules are amplified

• Primordial initiation reaction for a chemoautotrophic origin of life.

___
Homochirality:
___

• Data for Trp and other amino acids and amino acid mixtures show that homochiral sequences are produced preferentially if compared with a random distribution.

Observed Natural Occurrence of Molecules:

• Cyanopolyynes, like those produce by the Miller–Urey experiment, found in the diffuse interstellar medium.

• 54 carbon-containing compounds have been identified in the volcanic juvenile ash

Generation of Molecules:

• Hydrothermal vent environments are well suited for organic synthesis. Even biomolecules such as amino acids can be synthesized exergonically in hydrothermal ecosystems.

• Formose reaction to generate sugar intermediates that are converted to reactive amino acid thioesters is discussed.

• Endogenous, exogenous and impact-shock sources of organics could each have made a significant contribution to the origins of life.

• Autocatalytic reactions generate large molecular species in abundance.

• Observation suggests that prebiotic monomers could have oligomerized in the vicinity of submarine hydrothermal vents on primitive Earth.

Replication of Molecules:

• Some GARD vesicles display a significantly higher replication efficiency than most others. GARD thus represents a simple model for primordial chemical selection of mutually catalytic sets.

• The GARD model can serve as a platform for investigating the dynamics of self-organization mechanisms in molecular evolutionary processes.

• Kinetically enhanced recruitment of simple amphiphilic molecules, as well as about the spontaneous growth and splitting of assemblies, results in a complex population behavior.

• Kinetic evidence that cross-catalytic self-replication of complementary templates can proceed with an efficiency similar to that of autocatalytic self-replication of self-complementary templates

• Continuous in vitro evolution makes it possible to maintain laboratory “cultures” of catalytic molecules that can be perpetuated indefinitely.

I don't know. Seems like a lot of science going on for something we freely admit "we don't know" about.

Friend, I keep up with evolution research as much as I can, I even read the magazine ¨Evolution¨.

There is a lot of productive research going on.

However, until a theory is proposed, with deatail of the process, that is testable and observable, I don´t know suffices.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Correction: Your view doesn't.

No, not my view.
The evidence based science.
I'm going with the science.
You're the one going with mere beliefs.

It's probably because you have the mistaken idea that the present Cosmos is the only one God created. Amen?

No, my idea doesn't include gods creating anything.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then tell us ln the fewest words possible How and When mindless Nature installed the highest form of intelligence into anything, since mindless Nature is neutral, having no force to accomplish anything and having NO intelligence to impart.

Nature has no forces to accomplish anything?
Are you serious?

Magic is the only way such a thing could possibly happen and also WHY it can never be repeated.

Magical events are those events that require the suspension or violation of natural laws.
Chemistry, bio-chemistry, physics,... doesn't suspend or violate the natural laws.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don´t know what information is, so, just enlighten me. So, biochemicals create information, OK, lets explore that. Two, or a hundred chemicals reacting together can create information, and the process by which that information is used so that various possible options of chemical reactions are controlled by time, and environment. Further, this information is created so that one chemical reaction supports another, does not hinder another, and many, many chemical reactions work together in extremely complex ways to support a living cell.

Since the precursor organism did not inherit this information, no long strands of encoded DNA, no predetermined mechanism to utilize this information, this functioning organism was the result of random chemical reactions that coming together, somehow, somewhere in just the right environment developed all the that perfectly suited the precursor organism so that all its various functions were co ordinated, randomly, by blind chemical reactions, to produce a living organism.


OK ! Got it !

First strawmanning a gigantic field of science into 2 silly paragraphs to make it sound absurd and invoking an argument from incredulity.

Awesome.

*Achievement unlocked: double fallacy*​

You are either alive or dead, a very rigid line

Rigid, ha?
Tell me, are viruses alive?

You didn´t see the mad scientist who created his monster from body parts say when the lightning was raging, well, he is about 3 percent alive, by midnight he should be 100 percent aiive.

You are either alive or dead, a mass of chemicals is either alive or dead.

I define life as your Jr. hi biology teacher did.

During high school biology, I also learned about how the line between dead and alive isn't all that rigid as one might think, when it comes to microbiology

 

[Astrophile]

Satisfying ? Some people find cutting of their genitals to pretend they are the opposite sex satisfying.

Perhaps so. And quite a lot of people find cutting their children's genitals for religious reasons satisfying. Do you approve of that?

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

Creationists are the ones doing this!? You got to be putting me on. Evolution is defined scientifically as the change in alleles (traits) in populations over time. It is universally taken to mean universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic means going back to and including the Big Bang. Mutations have always meant defects, especially in genetic sequences but evolutionist calls any change in the DNA, or any adaptive trait, a mutation, even if it's just a geno.ic comparison. You guys pontificate that we've moved on from Darwinism when all you care about is arguing for and from the naturalistic assumptions that are the essence of Darwinis.

Creationists aren't the ones convuluting and equivocating the meanings of words here, Darwinians like yourself are notorious for it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evolution is defined scientifically as the change in alleles (traits) in populations over time. It is universally taken to mean universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic means going back to and including the Big Bang

You think evolution theory includes the big bang?
For real?

Mutations have always meant defects

That is just not true.

especially in genetic sequences but evolutionist calls any change in the DNA a mutation, even if it's just a geno.ic comparison. You guys pontificate that we've moved on from Darwinism when all you care about is arguing for and from the naturalistic assumptions that are the essence of Darwinis.

Darwin's core idea was spot on.

And you seem to be saying that it is dogmatically naturalistic. That is simply false as well.
Instead, it only includes natural processes for the simple reason that those are the only ones that can be shown to play a role. And they seem to be sufficient. There is no reason whatsoever to think that non-natural processes are required or existant.

Creationists aren't the ones convuluting and equivocating the meanings of words here, Darwinians like yourself are notorious for it.

lol

 

[HitchSlap]

Creationists aren't the ones convuluting and equivocating the meanings of words here, Darwinians like yourself are notorious for it.

 

[pitabread]

Creationists are the ones doing this!?

I was thinking of you specifically when I made this thread

 

[Aman777]

Nature doesn't "install" things.

Amen. Neither does it give "natural" beings the highest form of intelligence which is like God's. Only the descendants of Adam are Humans.

Nobody can say it it can't be repeated.

Go find the nearest Ape and change it into a descendant of Adam IF you think you can. If evolutionism was true, Trump is right and we are nothing but animals...just like the racist Darwin preached.

 

[mark kennedy]

You think evolution theory includes the big bang?
For real?

Got a Big Bang theory, God spoke and there it was. Oh no, wait a sec. That has to have an exclusively naturalistic cause to. These discussions have nothing to do with normative adaptive evolution because if living creatures are fully formed by divine fiat it changes nothing about how living things adapt over time. But when you dogmatically and facetiously argue for the exclusively naturalistic Darwinian tree of life mythology it's mutually exclusive.

BTW, evolution isn't a theory it a phenomenon in nature, whay you are calling a theory is the philosophy of natural history known as Darwinism.

And you seem to be saying that it is dogmatically naturalistic.

I said exclusively naturalistic, aka a priori assumption, going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. As Darwin described it, all things organic and inorganic change by natural law rather then 'miraculous interpolation'

That is simply false as well.
Instead, it only includes natural processes for the simple reason that those are the only ones that can be shown to play a role. And they seem to be sufficient. There is no reason whatsoever to think that non-natural processes are required or existant.

I'm first of all contradicting or correcting me isn't an actual argument, you being fallscious, just so you lnow, so don't blame me if I refuse to chase it in circles.

Secondly you don't want an alternative explanation for the origin of life, that doesnt mean reason and the epistimology of history has no intellectual capacity or warrent to pursure they only alternative to the atheistic materialism of Darwinian naturaliztic assumptions.

Nothing in this thread has anything to do with evolutionary biology but you guys are going to argue venemously that we must call Darwinism evolution and equivocated Darwinism natural assumption with science and evolution,

And were the ones changing the meaning of words, classic fallacious, rhetorical projection.

I miss the days when you guys could at least write a little satire to go with your ad hominem taunts.

 

[Aman777]

No, not my view.
The evidence based science.
I'm going with the science.
You're the one going with mere beliefs.

No, my idea doesn't include gods creating anything.

False since I support what I post with the agreement of Scripture science and history. Anything less is a half/truth like the ToE and no Evol has ever refuted me (proven me wrong) including yourself. Want to try again?

 

[pitabread]

You think evolution theory includes the big bang?
For real?

Mark seems to make up his own definitions for everything then complains endlessly about "equivocation" when everyone else uses proper definitions. It's weird.

 

[mark kennedy]

I was thinking of you specifically when I made this thread

Actually you were fishing for another chance to deny your own diengenuios semantics. The real shame here is if you knew anything about the Modern Synthesis, aka Neodarwinism we might have the basis for a substantive to talk about. Like the brilliant work done synthesizing Mendelian genetics and Darwinian natural selection into a unified theory of biology, not just adaptive evolution.

But no your too busy to be bothered with learning the philosophy of natural science you pretend to defend. All you care about is contradicting creationists with fallacious rhetoric and it's a crying shame. Neodarwinism was the crowning achievement of the Naturalist academic and intellectual movement it chanpioned. You should be wearing it like a badge of honor but thats what happens when you don't bother to learn the science of substance of the worldview you espouse. You've become wholly self deprecating. Just a crying shame.

 

[pitabread]

Actually you were fishing for another chance to deny your own diengenuios semantics. The real shame here is if you knew anything about the Modern Synthesis, aka Neodarwinism we might have the basis for a substantive to talk about. Like the brilliant work done synthesizing Mendelian genetics and Darwinian natural selection into a unified theory of biology, not just adaptive evolution.

But no your too busy to be bothered with learning the philosophy of natural science you pretend to defend. All you care about is contradicting creationists with fallacious rhetoric and it's a crying shame. Neodarwinism was the crowning achievement of the Naturalist academic and intellectual movement it chanpioned. You should be wearing it like a badge of honor but thats what happens when you don't bother to learn the science of substance of the worldview you espouse. You've become wholly self deprecating. Just a crying shame.

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with Hitchslap on this one...

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, if a wood chipper is turned on to chip wood into a window, whoever designed the wood chipper designed it to chip wood. The guy's who built it intended it to chip wood, the guy who bought it intended it to chip wood, the guy who set it up intended it to chip wood into the door or window, else you would think he would aim it differently, the guy who turned it on turned it on to chip wood, and most likely intended it to shoot into the house. Seems like some result was planned, designed, and implemented to shoot wood chips in the house, no ?

Did the chipper build itself from blind random chance, just happen to turn up at the house and was aimed by natural forces, then turn itself on, not knowing it, and feed wood into itself because it had no choice ?

Nah, it sounds like you misunderstood my use of a wood chipper to explain how catalysts function within a cell, which was explaining that the wood chipper is surrounded by wood but nothing is really putting the wood into the right spot for it to be chipped in a consistent way, so there ends up being way more wood than there is a need for wood chips, so most of it rots while the wood chips are not produced in the most timely fashion. As you know, no actual person makes wood chips that way, because doing it that way is stupidly inefficient. In an actually designed system, the wood is directed such that it always ends up in the appropriate hole of the wood chipper and excess wood is stored for future use rather than left to rot.

Not only that, but the way that cells control how much of a final product they make actually wastes some of that final product. Catalysts that are at the start of any series of reactions that produces a final chemical used by cells have a site on them that can bind to the final product. When they bind to it, they loose the shape that allows them to bind to the substrates and it renders them inert for whatever period of time the product remains bound to it. But of course, while they are bound to it, the final product also can't be used. And this is a system I often hear described as being comparatively elegant relative to other cellular processes.

Plus, catalysts definitely are not made with a purpose in mind. Have you ever wondered why so many artificial chemicals made by humans can be processed by your body? Have you ever wondered why it is possible for heroin to get a person high? Catalysts and other proteins that create a response when an active site is filled by a chemical don't just bind to the chemicals your body produces. They have the capacity to bind to a bunch of different, similarly shaped chemicals as well as chemicals with similar properties to their natural substrate/chemical trigger.

Sometimes the catalysts actually work better with the artificial substrates than they do with the natural ones. Other times, the catalysts bind so strongly with this other chemicals that it renders them entirely useless, and unsurprisingly, those chemicals tend to be toxic to our bodies. Carbon monoxide, for example, binds to hemoglobin far more strongly than oxygen does, effectively blocking it from carrying oxygen. No creationist would argue that hemoglobin was designed to bind to carbon monoxide, yet no creationist could give a reason that hemoglobin was designed such that it binds to it at all. Sure, you could toss a cement block into a wood chipper and break it, but since we directly, intelligently control what is dropped into a wood chipper, we can prevent that from ever happening. Not so with the proteins in your body. Your body can't do much of anything to prevent hemoglobin from binding with carbon monoxide; you can't even smell it, odorous chemicals are added to it so that we can smell a leak because we can't smell carbon monoxide itself. All preventative measures for keeping carbon monoxide from binding with our hemoglobin are of human invention.

It gets even worse when you consider that there are many substances which are only toxic because your body can partially break it down, producing toxic byproducts from an originally harmless compound. Why? Why would someone design a wood chipper such that if cedar wood was put into it, the machine would give off mustard gas? It would be so stupid, yet here we are with cells that essentially do just that if the right chemicals enter them.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Friend, I keep up with evolution research as much as I can, I even read the magazine ¨Evolution¨.

I can't find a magazine that just goes by the name "Evolution". Unless you are talking about the business and technology magazine that I doubt goes over the theory of evolution very much?

-_- or worse, stuff from Evolution News, which is actually a creationist organization.

However, until a theory is proposed, with deatail of the process, that is testable and observable, I don´t know suffices.

-_- if you have the patience, I'll go through as much of the process in as much detail as I can. All you need to do is respond to this post saying, "Sarah, describe to me the process behind evolution as best as you can".

I only do it on request because of the shear bulk of material.