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

[Speedwell]

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'

And yet so many theists--not metaphysical naturalists, by definition--agree with that statement. And do you know why? Because despite all your tap dancing, it is not an assertion of metaphysical naturalism.

 

[Clint Edwards]

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.

Thank you, I have avoided mentioning the evolution of the universe as part of the theory, because, Like Sherman made Georgia howl, a great crescendo assigning me to the great wood chipper in the sky would horribly arise. Those who don't know the true scope of their theory would verbally pound me to pieces even more, as an ignorant bumpkin. I didn't have the stomach for it.

 

[Speedwell]

Thank you, I have avoided mentioning the evolution of the universe as part of the theory, because, Like Sherman made Georgia howl, a great crescendo assigning me to the great wood chipper in the sky would horribly arise. Those who don't know the true scope of their theory would verbally pound me to pieces even more, as an ignorant bumpkin. I didn't have the stomach for it.

Because it is usually an indication that the creationist is trying to turn the argument from creation v. evolution to theism v. atheism, which is a foul play.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thank you, I have avoided mentioning the evolution of the universe as part of the theory, because, Like Sherman made Georgia howl, a great crescendo assigning me to the great wood chipper in the sky would horribly arise. Those who don't know the true scope of their theory would verbally pound me to pieces even more, as an ignorant bumpkin. I didn't have the stomach for it.

-_- the reason you shouldn't bring up anything to do with the universe as a whole when discussing the theory of evolution is because the theory of evolution only applies to living organisms. It doesn't apply to star formation, etc. Other theories and hypotheses may have evolution in their names, since evolution is a generic term for "change over time", but it is well understood that when people are using the phrase "the theory of evolution", they are talking about the theory relevant to living organisms.

-_- I'm not going to verbally abuse you when discussing the theory of evolution, but be sure to note that expressing disagreement with you in regards to it isn't verbal abuse.

 

[Clint Edwards]

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.

There is a lot of productive research going on.


-_- 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.

Thank you for your kind offer, but I already know there is no theory of abiogenesis. There are pieces that in a small way function and can and be observed, a number of them, but their scope is very limited. However they haven't been integrated in such a way as to connect them into a functional comprehensive model of the process, let alone a testable one.

Contrary to what many believe, I have a relatively open mind. A theory meeting the criteria of testability , the full process and gads , observation, would be extremely serious to me causing me to rethink my beliefs on a number of issues. I would even become an old earth evolutionist, or worse.

In all honesty, I have no doubt that a testable, even observable comprehensive theory will never exist.

BTW, I really appreciate your rational and adult style.

 

[Speedwell]

Thank you for your kind offer, but I already know there is no theory of abiogenesis. There are pieces that in a small way function and can and be observed, a number of them, but their scope is very limited. However they haven't been integrated in such a way as to connect them into a functional comprehensive model of the process, let alone a testable one.

Contrary to what many believe, I have a relatively open mind. A theory meeting the criteria of testability , the full process and gads , observation, would be extremely serious to me causing me to rethink my beliefs on a number of issues. I would even become an old earth evolutionist, or worse.

In all honesty, I have no doubt that a testable, even observable comprehensive theory will never exist.

BTW, I really appreciate your rational and adult style.

Or worse? LOL! What could possibly be worse? You understand, I hope, that if a testable theory of abiogenesis could be found, it still would not rule out the divine creation of life.

 

[mark kennedy]

Thank you, I have avoided mentioning the evolution of the universe as part of the theory, because, Like Sherman made Georgia howl, a great crescendo assigning me to the great wood chipper in the sky would horribly arise. Those who don't know the true scope of their theory would verbally pound me to pieces even more, as an ignorant bumpkin. I didn't have the stomach for it.

Don't let's it bother you, the banter of Darwinian street Theator can be mildly amusing if you learn how to have fun with it. Speaking of making up words, historically defenders of the doctrine of creation were classified as Natural Theology, Intelligent Design falls into the same category. I'm truly amazed how many people argue against against creation and for Darwinian Naturalism and never learn anything about either. The subject of evolutionary biology seldom comes up and you can forget about hominid paleontology. So if you want some substantive good luck.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thank you for your kind offer, but I already know there is no theory of abiogenesis.

I never said anything about abiogenesis, I was talking about evolution. I even explicitly mentioned evolution in my post. I thought I already went through the abiogenesis hypothesis with you and what has been found thus far anyways. Am I thinking of someone else?

BTW, I really appreciate your rational and adult style.

It suits me none to act like a spaz in these debates. It also doesn't help to be overly disrespectful to debate opponents. However, persistently stubborn people that keep using the same bad arguments over and over despite those arguments being completely destroyed on numerous occasions eventually wear me down. If it gets bad enough, I leave the site for a while, returning only when I am calm once more.

-_- going to a Spirit Science chat on another site was so bad that I had to avoid going on here for over a month. And that was just two hours of that rancid baloney. They viewed me being an Aquarius with my ascendant sign being Cancer as impossible. Of course it is possible, there are people born every hour, with one of those being determined by a range of about a month in which a person is born, and the other is based on the time of day a person is born. All combinations of those should exist. I wish them questioning my date and time of birth was the dumbest thing from that, but the sad part is, it was the smartest and is the only part I can discuss without becoming royally angry.

 

[Clint Edwards]

I never said anything about abiogenesis, I was talking about evolution. I even explicitly mentioned evolution in my post. I thought I already went through the abiogenesis hypothesis with you and what has been found thus far anyways. Am I thinking of someone else?


It suits me none to act like a spaz in these debates. It also doesn't help to be overly disrespectful to debate opponents. However, persistently stubborn people that keep using the same bad arguments over and over despite those arguments being completely destroyed on numerous occasions eventually wear me down. If it gets bad enough, I leave the site for a while, returning only when I am calm once more.

-_- going to a Spirit Science chat on another site was so bad that I had to avoid going on here for over a month. And that was just two hours of that rancid baloney. They viewed me being an Aquarius with my ascendant sign being Cancer as impossible. Of course it is possible, there are people born every hour, with one of those being determined by a range of about a month in which a person is born, and the other is based on the time of day a person is born. All combinations of those should exist. I wish them questioning my date and time of birth was the dumbest thing from that, but the sad part is, it was the smartest and is the only part I can discuss without becoming royally angry.

No, you probably are thinking of me. Evolution in general is an area I don't venture into very often. Apparently I am old fashioned in discussing the fossil record or rates of change in separated populations, or how large a sustainable population must be to exact significant change as compared to the fossil record etc. I am told that what I feel comfortable in discussing isn't very relevant any longer., The science has moved on, and I haven't. I accept this.

So, I limit my science discussions to abiogenesis, astronomy and cosmology, and I dabble a little with physics. The latter isn't a strong point, since I have had a graduate level course in relativity, have read a lot about it, and sometimes feel I understand less and less instead of the opposite !

 

[Clint Edwards]

Or worse? LOL! What could possibly be worse? You understand, I hope, that if a testable theory of abiogenesis could be found, it still would not rule out the divine creation of life.

Of course. I find the idea extremely unpalatable though.

 

[Clint Edwards]

Because it is usually an indication that the creationist is trying to turn the argument from creation v. evolution to theism v. atheism, which is a foul play.

Perhaps, but I would suggest that just as often the evolutionist wants to arrive at the same destination.

 

[pitabread]

Of course. I find the idea extremely unpalatable though.

Why?

 

[pitabread]

Perhaps, but I would suggest that just as often the evolutionist wants to arrive at the same destination.

Nah. Considering the amount of time and money that gets wasted as a result of anti-evolution pushback, I think the world's biologists would be happy if the entire "debate" just went away.

Then that same time and money could be spent on more productive things.

 

[Speedwell]

Perhaps, but I would suggest that just as often the evolutionist wants to arrive at the same destination.

I wouldn't be so sure. Atheists don't really care that much about arguing against the existence of God as such. For the most part they don't care very much whether other people believe in God, so long as the believer is not bumptious about it. On the other hand, I can see how creationists might think it to their advantage. It feeds the narrative that the theory of evolution is an atheistic lie responsible for the secularization and consequent decline of civilization and raises the game to a cosmic level from what was a mere squabble about the interpretation of an ancient holy book.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, you probably are thinking of me. Evolution in general is an area I don't venture into very often. Apparently I am old fashioned in discussing the fossil record or rates of change in separated populations, or how large a sustainable population must be to exact significant change as compared to the fossil record etc. I am told that what I feel comfortable in discussing isn't very relevant any longer., The science has moved on, and I haven't. I accept this.

So, I limit my science discussions to abiogenesis, astronomy and cosmology, and I dabble a little with physics. The latter isn't a strong point, since I have had a graduate level course in relativity, have read a lot about it, and sometimes feel I understand less and less instead of the opposite !

Sounds like you are in the wrong subforum, then. Not sure why you came to the Creationism vs. Evolution subforum to talk abiogenesis, astronomy, and cosmology. You should take that over to Physical and Life Sciences.

I will, however, recommend reading the work of Jack Szostak for more on abiogenesis.

Also, people discuss fossil records on here all the time, so I am not sure what you think is "old fashioned" about it. Definitely a dead horse, mind you, but it persists.

Rate of change in separated populations intrigues me. I don't actually see a lot of creationists comment on it, so I am curious as to what you have to offer on the matter.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Perhaps, but I would suggest that just as often the evolutionist wants to arrive at the same destination.

I not only don't care if other people are theists or not, but I have been a seeker for over 9 years. Debating whether or not deities exist just makes me depressed because I get told "look around you" and "you aren't trying hard enough to find evidence of god" so much.

 

[AV1611VET]

I not only don't care if other people are theists or not, but I have been a seeker for over 9 years. Debating whether or not deities exist just makes me depressed because I get told "look around you" and "you aren't trying hard enough to find evidence of god" so much.

I like the "look around you" one.

Christian holidays, hymns, literature, iconography, churches, songs, carols, martyrs, witnesses, testimonials, debates, plays, and whatnot all serve as cause-and-effect evidence for God.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I like the "look around you" one.

Christian holidays, hymns, literature, iconography, churches, songs, carols, martyrs, witnesses, testimonials, debates, plays, and whatnot all serve as cause-and-effect evidence for God.

I could say the same sort of thing for Islam, Hinduism... any currently common religion, really.

 

[pitabread]

Christian holidays, hymns, literature, iconography, churches, songs, carols, martyrs, witnesses, testimonials, debates, plays, and whatnot all serve as cause-and-effect evidence for God.

They serve as evidence for belief in God.

 

[AV1611VET]

I could say the same sort of thing for Islam, Hinduism... any currently common religion, really.

I know.

But one is the read deal.

The rest constitute what we call diabolical mimicry.

Whatever God has, Satan has a cheap imitation.