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

[DogmaHunter]

Just a meek, quiet question. You are involved in a discussion in CHRISTIAN Forums.

More specifically, in a sub-forum open to all "faiths" (or lack thereof) called "Physical & life sciences". Thus, a sub-forum to discuss science.

You don't appear to be a Christian. Why are you here ? Is their a purpose for you being here ? Do you have any goal in mind related to your interactions with Christians ?

I have lots of reasons for being here. Ranging from learning about what people believe to sheer entertainment.

Not that it matters, because I don't have to explain myself to you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If, someone holds onto, say, the hypothesis of a steady state universe dogmatically ( you need to hunt them up, though what you do with dogma, other than whine about it, I don't know) and is so sure they are right, they make no effort to look at other models of the universe, their POSITION is sad, and their ATTITUDE is sad. Can you grasp that ?

Sure. Holding on to dogma's, is always a bad idea.
Science doesn't do this though. Which is why steady state has been discarded while big bang theory and the expanding universe are now in business.

A person who says I don't know, and has made no effort to know, is by self inducement, ignorant. Anyone who is ignorant by choice, is sad.

It's not by choice. When something isn't known yet, it is unknown. It's that simple.
Pretending to know anyway, will not result in anything usefull.

When something is unknown, the only proper stance is "we don't know, let's try and find out"

Now, to your hyperbolic, ludicrous last sentence.

Any lay person can grasp the simple fundamentals that underlay most scientific disciplines.

Even physicists themselves have a hard time grasping things like quantum theory.
There's this infamous saying (forgot which iconic physicist said it), which goes like: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics - you don't understand quantum mechanics".

This isn't true for all disciplines, that is correct.
What is also correct, is that there isn't a single reason to assume that "lay persons" know better then those who were actually trained and are actively working in said fields.

I have working knowledge of human anatomy and the underpinning biology. I understand the basics of virusses etc. But that doesn't mean I am qualified to argue against a medical expert's diagnose.

Most will find them interesting and food for thought. You probably won't. Your dogma ensures that what you believe is right, and anythng else is wrong.
'
Look for it.

The only person here who's been engaging in dogma's in this exchange, has been you - with your religious beliefs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Since you have decided that Biblical creationism is Biblical nonsense, you obviously have decided you can arbitrarily make that determination anywhere in the Bible you choose.

To say that a literal genesis is obvious nonsense, is anything BUT arbitary.
That is rather a demonstrable statement based on overwhelming evidence.

 

[Ophiolite]

In any case, as you say yourself: there is controversy regarding virusses. I need only one example to make my point: no, the line between alive and not alive, isn't as rigid as you claimed.

One can only argue about the dividing line between life and non-life if one believes life and non-life represent a true dichotomy rather than portions of a specturm. If the latter is the case the dividing line is determined entirely by definition and that is dependent upon context and interest and focus and is thus artificial. I hold to the latter position and therefore consider arguments about whether viruses are alive or not reveals a lot more about debating technique and the interests of the debaters than it does about biology.

 

[Clint Edwards]

More specifically, in a sub-forum open to all "faiths" (or lack thereof) called "Physical & life sciences". Thus, a sub-forum to discuss science.



I have lots of reasons for being here. Ranging from learning about what people believe to sheer entertainment.

Not that it matters, because I don't have to explain myself to you.

No, you don't have to explain to me, I already know why you are here. You left out demeaning others who believe differently than you and jeering, a high form of entertainment for many of your persuasion.

 

[Clint Edwards]

My friend says that your friend is wrong

In any case, as you say yourself: there is controversy regarding virusses. I need only one example to make my point: no, the line between alive and not alive, isn't as rigid as you claimed.

My friend has a friend whose brother in law's cousin's daughters husband says your point has nothing to do with being right, he says it has everything to do with your lack of understanding the issue. By the traditional definition of life, viruses aren't alive.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Just a meek, quiet question. You are involved in a discussion in CHRISTIAN Forums. You don't appear to be a Christian. Why are you here ? Is their a purpose for you being here ? Do you have any goal in mind related to your interactions with Christians ?

I'm here primarily to improve my patience with other people.

The reason I don't bother with atheist forums is because I find it to be kinda blah. Not much to connect people that only have a lack of belief in deities in common.

Also, I notice later that you presume some people are on here to make fun of Christians. This site is so strict with its regulations as to make it a poor choice for that. There's only 1 antitheist that comes on here that fits the bill, and he gets banned within a week of returning with a new account.

I mean seriously, I got a temporary ban on my account because I called people dinguses, and a certain popular joke that is a mockery of Christianity that is pasta based is so restricted that I'm not even going to say the three word name directly. No atheist trolls could hope to last long on this site.

 

[PsychoSarah]

By the traditional definition of life, viruses aren't alive.

Yes, although they have more life-related traits than most non-living things do.

 

[Astrophile]

But if it's true at all, I think it can only be true for Protestants with their doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

If it is a Protestant doctrine, why does it have a Latin name?

 

[Speedwell]

If it is a Protestant doctrine, why does it have a Latin name?

At the time of the Reformation, church people all still used Latin, both the reformers and the Catholics. If it didn't have a Latin name it would probably be German, Luther's native language.