Creationists lingo

[vossler]

One thing I wish Creationists would do in order not to step into the evolutionist's terminology trap is use the term adaptation instead of evolution. Adaptation describes what all people agree is a fact, Creationists and Evolutionists don't have a problem with adaptation, so let's use that word when it is appropriate. This way we can reserve evolution, the change from one species to another through new genetic information, for when it is appropriate. Most of us (Creationists) would all agree that it isn't a fact but is a bunch of speculation and conjecture, this way our dispute is more accurately focused.

So, instead of using their all encompassing term, let's just be specific as to what we know to be factual and call that adaptation and everything else evolution. I know as a non-scientist that would clear things up and help out the ignorant among us, like me.

Thoughts?

 

[keyarch]

One thing I wish Creationists would do in order not to step into the evolutionist's terminology trap ....Thoughts?

Even if you get the terminology right, good luck!
In my experience, if you make a decent argument they don't even acknowledge it and change the subject. Of course this happens even when debating non-evolutionist too. It's hard when you're not face to face to reason things out.
We need a whole list of definitions that can be referred back to, starting with "science". The list could be reviewed by this whole site and voted on until there is a clear majority agreement. Then before starting a debate, we could all stipulate that we agree with the definitions.

 

[vossler]

Even if you get the terminology right, good luck!

I hear that, but at least we've stepped over one obstacle.

In my experience, if you make a decent argument they don't even acknowledge it and change the subject. Of course this happens even when debating non-evolutionist too. It's hard when you're not face to face to reason things out.

Yeah, it's amazing what you can accomplish when you're face to face. Then again, you usually won't even broach the subject.

We need a whole list of definitions that can be referred back to, starting with "science". The list could be reviewed by this whole site and voted on until there is a clear majority agreement. Then before starting a debate, we could all stipulate that we agree with the definitions.

Boy do I agree here, all terminology, whether science or the Bible seems to have so many different meanings. As great an idea as this may be, I just don't see us getting into agreement. I hope I'm wrong though.

 

[laptoppop]

I agree -- sometimes introducing new terms can help avoid old meanings. Another thing I've found helpful around here is to refer to the Bible as the Scriptures instead of as the Word -- some folks tend to try to apply the first part of John (Jesus as the Word) in such a way that they have a hard time with the term. Because I want to focus on other things, I let it go for the time being.

 

[Mallon]

Friendly suggestion: defining "kinds" and "information" would be very helpful, too!

 

[TySJI]

Friendly suggestion: defining "kinds" and "information" would be very helpful, too!

Kind = group of animals with a shared ancestry. E.g. (foxes, wolves, and coyotes are probably variations of a single creature. Lions, tiger, other big cats and--maybe--domestic cats are variations of a single creature). These "kinds" are usually known by whether the inclusive animals can interbred or not. Sometimes it's speculative if a creature (e.g. domestic cats I think) are from the same family as the big cats or have their own family. Rather than make a new family for each group that can't interbred, it's been shown that genetic variation (i.e. mutations+some sort of selection like human or natural) can happen very rapidly and to the point that the new creatures can't interbred with their ancestors.

Information = "specified complexity". It ultimately is based on the genetic code. Just like parts of the coding on your hard drive are specified (able to be interpreted by another medium) in a complex way (e.g. to make, say, Windows XP), a creatures coding is specified (goes onto become RNA then the RNA, proteins) in a complex way to bring together certain materials into a functioning whole (e.g. your brain--especially if you're a YEC ).

 

[Brennan]

Kind = group of animals with a shared ancestry.

Shared ancestry would be an evolutionary term already, this violates Vossler's principle (which is a good one).

Information = "specified complexity". It ultimately is based on the genetic code. Just like parts of the coding on your hard drive are specified (able to be interpreted by another medium) in a complex way (e.g. to make, say, Windows XP), a creatures coding is specified (goes onto become RNA then the RNA, proteins) in a complex way to bring together certain materials into a functioning whole (e.g. your brain--especially if you're a YEC ).

Sorry but this can't talk you round the glaring problem with the 'information is lost' refutation.

 

[TySJI]

Shared ancestry would be an evolutionary term already, this violates Vossler's principle (which is a good one).

1) Vossler was talking about the terms "adaption" and "evolution", not "shared ancestry"
2) "which is a good one" isn't a substitute for an argument. I'm not going to believe someone who makes one sentance arguments on authority.
3) We used "shared ancestry" all the time without evolutionary cannotations. For example, me and my sister have a shared ancestry in our parents.
4) I'm not going to sacrifice half of my lexicon and, by extention, clarity for evolutionists.

Sorry but this can't talk you round the glaring problem with the 'information is lost' refutation.

Your sentance isn't coherent. I guess "talk" = "take" and " 'information is lost' refutation" is an argument (with no evidence).

I have no idea how a person can't see how a complex information-based system could lose information. I believe that creatures can lose information. I just don't think they can naturalistically mutate it in the first place. How am I refuted?

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Kind = group of animals with a shared ancestry. E.g. (foxes, wolves, and coyotes are probably variations of a single creature. Lions, tiger, other big cats and--maybe--domestic cats are variations of a single creature). These "kinds" are usually known by whether the inclusive animals can interbred or not. Sometimes it's speculative if a creature (e.g. domestic cats I think) are from the same family as the big cats or have their own family. Rather than make a new family for each group that can't interbred, it's been shown that genetic variation (i.e. mutations+some sort of selection like human or natural) can happen very rapidly and to the point that the new creatures can't interbred with their ancestors.

Information = "specified complexity". It ultimately is based on the genetic code. Just like parts of the coding on your hard drive are specified (able to be interpreted by another medium) in a complex way (e.g. to make, say, Windows XP), a creatures coding is specified (goes onto become RNA then the RNA, proteins) in a complex way to bring together certain materials into a functioning whole (e.g. your brain--especially if you're a YEC ).

Very well put my friend.

 

[FallingWaters]

One thing I wish Creationists would do in order not to step into the evolutionist's terminology trap is use the term adaptation instead of evolution. Adaptation describes what all people agree is a fact, Creationists and Evolutionists don't have a problem with adaptation, so let's use that word when it is appropriate. This way we can reserve evolution, the change from one species to another through new genetic information, for when it is appropriate. Most of us (Creationists) would all agree that it isn't a fact but is a bunch of speculation and conjecture, this way our dispute is more accurately focused.

So, instead of using their all encompassing term, let's just be specific as to what we know to be factual and call that adaptation and everything else evolution. I know as a non-scientist that would clear things up and help out the ignorant among us, like me.

Thoughts?

I like your idea.
I will try to remember the word adaptation.

I don't like when people refer to some program or some person "evolving".

All they really mean is that something IMPROVED from what it was.
Using the world "evolved" makes it sound like it happened that way accidentally all by itself,
without any help of intelligence or energy from outside forces.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I like the word adapting.

Although I would have suggested using the term 'natural selection' to refer to our common understanding of the relationship between environmental niches and various symbiotic species, I would have been wrong. 'National selection' has too many Darwinian overtones, and the modern evolutionary synthesis isn't purely Darwinian.

All to say, I like the term as a designation of microevolutionary processes.

 

[vossler]

Sorry I haven't responded earlier, I was hoping for more input.

Vossler was talking about the terms "adaption" and "evolution", not "shared ancestry"

That's true. My main point is to clarify what is being said. When I hear evolution I don't always know how the term is being used. For example, sometimes evolutionists will come back and declare that without the theory of evolution most of our scientific advancements wouldn't exist. Well, if we substitute the ToE with adaptation here then the statement is very true and I can support it 100%. It is the science of adaptation that is the source of these scientific advancements, not the process of one species changing into another. I just want to divide evolution into two parts, the one that is proven and empirical and the other one that is conjecture and speculation.

I'm not going to sacrifice half of my lexicon and, by extention, clarity for evolutionists.

I agree, that's what I'm seeking too, clarity.

I like your idea.
I will try to remember the word adaptation.

It certainly makes it simpler to respond to in discussions.

I don't like when people refer to some program or some person "evolving".

All they really mean is that something IMPROVED from what it was.

Boy do I agree here. The implication is they are improving and there is no proof that evolution has ever improved anything, if anything its the quite the opposite.

Using the world "evolved" makes it sound like it happened that way accidentally all by itself,
without any help of intelligence or energy from outside forces.

Yep, another way to take God out of the equation.

I like the word adapting.

Although I would have suggested using the term 'natural selection' to refer to our common understanding of the relationship between environmental niches and various symbiotic species, I would have been wrong. 'National selection' has too many Darwinian overtones, and the modern evolutionary synthesis isn't purely Darwinian.

All to say, I like the term as a designation of microevolutionary processes.

Exactly!