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

[SkyWriting]

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.

The cool thing about language is how words modify each other:

(proper) conversation
specific context
contextual meanings
private definitions
meaningful discussion.

Especially the first and last examples.

 

[SkyWriting]

Then why do I understand it, even though I never heard it before?

Ever heard of the history of Rock & Roll?

Does that make sense to you?

"Hip Hop" fails to make sense, for me.

 

[tas8831]

Interesting humanist position. Your calculations I am sure your are correct from your perspective and foundational propositions.

Those were not mine - I clearly indicated that it was all taken from another post on this forum written by someone else.
Details.

However, we are not speaking of anything that will fit the humanist/atheist perspective.

Prove it.

From the believers perspective, God's intervention can never be discounted in this narrative, or the ones before or after.

So apparently from your "perspective" whenever you are confronted with insurmountable facts, you can always hide behind 'MIRACLE!'
Even when there is no biblical justification for doing so.
Seems to be the intellectual coward's way out.

I am sure your positions would be that humanity never became so depraved that a non existent God had to destroy it, I am sure you reject the Biblical narrative that antediluvian people all spoke one language and clustered in one city.

Yes, since there is no reason to think allegories or moral tales are necessarily true. Especially when there is contradictory evidence.

So, your conundrum is not one from a believers perspective.

It is not my conundrum. It is the conundrum for those who want these ancient tales to be based on true stories, and when it is clear that they are not, want to use an all-purpose escape clause.

God could could have slowed down the animals metabolism, He could have had for most of the time the animals in state of suspended animation, for most of the time, whatever.

Seems He could have also simply changed the hearts of all the sinners. Instead, He chose cruelty and slaughter.

The humanist/atheist perspective and rules simply do not apply. You are trying to open a door and your particular key will never fit.

The religionist perspective is inapplicable in the adult world where reality rules.

There is another key that will open the door, but you won't use it, stalemate. It is a draw. There could never be checkmate, because we are playing on different boards.

Yes - mine is the board used by adults.

 

[AV1611VET]

Great.
Show the Scripture that indicates that this happened.

I'm just putting it forward as an educated guess.

10,000 animals got on the Ark and a year later 10,000 animals got off the Ark.

What's your explanation?

 

[AV1611VET]

"Hip Hop" fails to make sense, for me.

Isn't that what rabbits do?

 

[tas8831]

LOL, your world view is based upon a plethora of unprovable ideas, many ludicrous, for the creation of everything.

I know - we crazily think that one of several ancient tribal deities made a man from the dust of the ground, breathed into it, and out popped a fully grown adult human male.
Where did the Hebrew deities come from? And so on...

 

[SkyWriting]

This is a thread topic about creationists making up private definitions of words. "Kind" is a perfect example. So I thank you for that.

Words derived from "Kind" include "Kin-Folk" which means ancestors or parents.
The scriptures are translated from other languages and the meanings are
a matter of discussion among translation teams.

Two of every
kind of bird, of every
kind of animal and of every
kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

20 Two of every kind of bird

Word Origin
from kalal
Definition: the whole, all

all (4045), all for every (2), all his and every (1), all his everything (1), all its the entire (1), all the and every (1), all the of every (1), all the everywhere (1), all the throughout (1), all your concerning everything (1), all your to every (1), all your throughout (1), all men (2), all these (1), all things (11), altogether (1), always* (15), annually* (2), any (176), any or by all (2), any* (5), anyone (12), anyone* (2), anything (31), anything* (6), anywhere (3), anywhere* (1), both (2), complete (2), completely (5), continually*

 

[SkyWriting]

Isn't that what rabbits do?

The waskely wons, yes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm just putting it forward as an educated guess.

10,000 animals got on the Ark and a year later 10,000 animals got off the Ark.

And they miraculously survived the most extreme case of inbreeding.
And kangaroo's and koala bears happily hopped (and swam?) all the way from the middle east and settled in Australia.
And somehow no species has dna that contains the inevitable extreme genetic bottleneck this would leave.
Somehow literally everything on this planet looks as if that event never happened.

But it doesn't matter. Because God can do anything, right?

What's your explanation?

It didn't happen.

 

[tas8831]

I'm just putting it forward as an educated guess.

Seems more like an assertion of 'fact':

"1. The food problem was a piece of cake with God. A barrel would suffice."

But now that you realize you've got nuthin', you backtrack.

10,000 animals got on the Ark and a year later 10,000 animals got off the Ark.

What's your explanation?

That it is just an embellished tall tale.

 

[DogmaHunter]

LOL, Did the wood chipper turn itself on with the intent to get the end result, no matter how inefficient the process ?

How do/did you determine that there is an intended result?

 

[DogmaHunter]

LOL, your world view is based upon a plethora of unprovable ideas, many ludicrous, for the creation of everything. YO

My worldview is based on an empirical evaluation of reality. Not on the stuff we don't know (yet).

The irony in that quote is amazing, btw.

Can only answer the fundamental questions of philosophy, like " why is there something instead of nothing " with "huh ?"

Because it's an unanswerd question. We don't know.
Simply claiming that Quatzalcoatl, Odin, Ra or Jawhe did it, doesn't exactly answer the question either.

I prefer not simply inventing stuff. I prefer being intellectually honest and saying "i don't know" when I don't know.

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

Ow... you're that kind of person.
Great....

Well, as we used to say in the '60's different strokes for different folks, but that is the point isn't it ? Purely subjective

It doesn't get more objective then empirical reality.

Your worldview is is at heart, a view of no value, no meaning, and death riddled. Everything dies, a long lifetime means nothing in itself, or to anyone else, because every ones life is lived to die, and everyone dies, and on the road of infinite time you, me, everybody, the earth, the universe dies, and becomes a microscopic bump on that smooth road that never ends. That tiny bump has as much meaning, significance, importance and value as the tiniest bump on the road in front of your house.

Mindreading device repair shops, are gonna make a lot of money tomorrow I think.

In any case, appealing to emotion is not the way to go.
The universe is the way it is. Not liking how the universe is, will not change how it is.

 

[Clint Edwards]

My worldview is based on an empirical evaluation of reality. Not on the stuff we don't know (yet).

The irony in that quote is amazing, btw.



Because it's an unanswerd question. We don't know.
Simply claiming that Quatzalcoatl, Odin, Ra or Jawhe did it, doesn't exactly answer the question either.

I prefer not simply inventing stuff. I prefer being intellectually honest and saying "i don't know" when I don't know.



Ow... you're that kind of person.
Great....



It doesn't get more objective then empirical reality.



Mindreading device repair shops, are gonna make a lot of money tomorrow I think.

In any case, appealing to emotion is not the way to go.
The universe is the way it is. Not liking how the universe is, will not change how it is.

Appealing to emotion ? no, stating absolute fact.

So you say "I don't know" and think that is some kind o]f badge on intellectual honesty, which it isn't, and your badge too is meaningless.

I like the universe as it is, I know where it came from, how it was created, and why it exists.

You know none of these things, like an ant, you apparently don't think on philosophy or it's questions, and answers. And I am not speaking of Christianity, but general philosophy.

Even Einstein thought about these things, and sought answers, and found some.

However, you tell me you operate at the primal level, cannot ask these questions, let alone answer them, and because your view in your "honesty", and apparent natural fact, makes them counter productive.

Virtually all the new atheists are angry people, you need not converse with most for very long to learn this. I often wonder what generates that anger, is it g their "world view" ?

That is truly sad

 

[Clint Edwards]

How do/did you determine that there is an intended result?

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 ?

 

[Clint Edwards]

I know - we crazily think that one of several ancient tribal deities made a man from the dust of the ground, breathed into it, and out popped a fully grown adult human male.
Where did the Hebrew deities come from? And so on...

Hmmm, that is ridiculous right ? Much better to think that water runoff from rocks and chemicals brought down by rain are our true parents.

 

[Clint Edwards]

Those were not mine - I clearly indicated that it was all taken from another post on this forum written by someone else.
Details.

Prove it.


So apparently from your "perspective" whenever you are confronted with insurmountable facts, you can always hide behind 'MIRACLE!'
Even when there is no biblical justification for doing so.
Seems to be the intellectual coward's way out.

Yes, since there is no reason to think allegories or moral tales are necessarily true. Especially when there is contradictory evidence.

It is not my conundrum. It is the conundrum for those who want these ancient tales to be based on true stories, and when it is clear that they are not, want to use an all-purpose escape clause.

Seems He could have also simply changed the hearts of all the sinners. Instead, He chose cruelty and slaughter.

The religionist perspective is inapplicable in the adult world where reality rules.

Yes - mine is the board used by adults.

Yes, but they have mental defects and their game is played in a special care home.

 

[AV1611VET]

But now that you realize you've got nuthin', you backtrack.

I beg your pardon?

Backtrack?

You mean back ten years ago?

I don't know --- but I can intelligently guess how they were fed, by simply looking at how God handled a similar situation later, when He miraculously fed the widow of Zarephath in 1 Kings 19.

 

[Non sequitur]

My empirical key does not fit in the magical door.

Appealing to emotion ? no, stating absolute fact.

So you say "I don't know" and think that is some kind o]f badge on intellectual honesty, which it isn't, and your badge too is meaningless.

I like the universe as it is, I know where it came from, how it was created, and why it exists.

You know none of these things, like an ant, you apparently don't think on philosophy or it's questions, and answers. And I am not speaking of Christianity, but general philosophy.

Even Einstein thought about these things, and sought answers, and found some.

However, you tell me you operate at the primal level, cannot ask these questions, let alone answer them, and because your view in your "honesty", and apparent natural fact, makes them counter productive.

Virtually all the new atheists are angry people, you need not converse with most for very long to learn this. I often wonder what generates that anger, is it g their "world view" ?

That is truly sad

How is stating "I don't know", when you don't know, a truly sad thing?

If something is currently unverifiable, wouldn't one honestly say they didn't know?

(I haven't seen any anger in this discussion.)

 

[DogmaHunter]

Appealing to emotion ? no, stating absolute fact.

First, I disagree these are facts.

Secondly, going along with those being facts for the sake of argument, the only reason you mention them, is to get an emotional response/reaction. If those are facts, then that's just how it is. Facts are facts. But you seem to be mentioning them only to then say "...and that's not nice, so let's believe this other story instead"

That's appealing to emotion.

So you say "I don't know" and think that is some kind o]f badge on intellectual honesty, which it isn't, and your badge too is meaningless.

If you don't know, then you don't know.
Saying you don't know when you don't know, is the honest thing to say.

Maybe honesty is meaningless to you, but I tend to value it.

I like the universe as it is, I know where it came from, how it was created, and why it exists.

No, you have beliefs about where it came from.
Beliefs that you can't support with evidence.

But you don't know either.
The difference between you and me is that I am honest about it, while you are just believing a story that makes you feel good about yourself. Most likely by geographic accident. Were you born in some remote region of Pakistan, you'ld be a Taliban style muslim.

You know none of these things, like an ant, you apparently don't think on philosophy or it's questions, and answers. And I am not speaking of Christianity, but general philosophy.

Philosophy is great for asking questions.
Science is great for answering them.

Even Einstein thought about these things, and sought answers, and found some.

Argument from authority in the making?
Bad authority to chose from when trying to support your particular side of the argument, btw. Did you know that Einstein called your beliefs "superstition and childish"?

However, you tell me you operate at the primal level, cannot ask these questions, let alone answer them, and because your view in your "honesty", and apparent natural fact, makes them counter productive.

You really need to start paying attention to what people are actually saying, instead of inventing stuff about them.

I can ask any question. The point is that I am honest about which questions are already answered and which aren't.

Also, not all questions are valid questions.
If I were to ask for example "what does purple taste like?" - that's not a valid question.

Virtually all the new atheists are angry people, you need not converse with most for very long to learn this. I often wonder what generates that anger, is it g their "world view" ?

Now I'm angry?

That is truly sad

Yes, honesty is "so sad".

 

[DogmaHunter]

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 ?

Good job on completely departing from the analogy and instead talk about the woodchipper itself.

Here's the analogy again:

Cellular functions would be way more efficient if the molecules actually organized themselves optimally. In reality, catalysts just move about mostly at random until their substrates come into contact with them. It'd be like turning a wood chipper on and filling the room it is in with wood until some eventually falls into the hole and becomes enough wood chips to satisfy demand, and then waiting for the extra, unchipped wood to just rot. It's horrifically inefficient and wasteful.

As you can see, the analogy is not about the woodchipper as a device.
The analogy is rather about how wasteful the inner workings of the cell are.
Furthermore, the inner workings of the cell are just bio-chemical reactions.

So I ask again, how have you determined that there is / was an intended result?
Because it rather seems to me that when a (bio)chemical reaction takes place, the output of that reaction is actually more of an inevitable result.

It's not like such reactions give random output.
A+B under conditions X will always result in Z.
Entire chemical industries are based on that.​