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

[DogmaHunter]

Like a virus?

No. Rather as the rather inevitable cultural aspect of religion that it is.

 

[AV1611VET]

It does not.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Got a Big Bang theory, God spoke and there it was.

Did he say "abracadabra", by any chance?

Oh no, wait a sec. That has to have an exclusively naturalistic cause to.

No. It needs to be a view that is more then an an unsupportable bare claim.
It needs to be a model that is actually supported by evidence, actually explains the evidence and which can be tested with further evidence.

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.

Exactly. Which is exactly the reason why evolution theory only deals with the development of existing life.

Indeed, if tomorrow we find out that first life was unnaturally created, evolution theory would be as valid as ever.

But when you dogmatically and facetiously argue for the exclusively naturalistic Darwinian tree of life mythology it's mutually exclusive.

Who does this?
I just require models that are actually supported by evidence and which can actually be tested.

It just so happens that so far only naturalistic models meet those criteria.
So really, you seem to just be complaining that your religious doctrine view doesn't meet those criteria and that we refuse to simply "believe" for the sake of believing.

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.

No. The theory is the model that explains how diversity in living things comes about.
It details how the process actually works.

I said exclusively naturalistic, aka a priori assumption, going all the way back to and including the Big Bang.

And as I said, you are wrong about that.
Science is exclusively evidence based.
That unnaturalistic claims aren't supported by evidence, and in fact are almost always defined in such a way that they even can't be supported by evidence, is a problem of the models - not of the science.

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.

Well sorry, but if you are wrong then you are wrong, it is that simple.
No, there are no dogma's in science that everything needs to have natural causes.
It's just so happens that the supernatural is defined in such a way that it puts itself outside that which can be scientifically investigated. It explains nothing, it's untestable, it's unsupportable, it's unfalsifiable,... It is utterly without merrit and completely useless.

The day you come up with an unnaturalistic model that actually CAN be tested, supported and falsified, is the day that it will get some attention.

Before that: it's just religious claims, like there are thousands of others (that you don't care about either, btw....)

Secondly you don't want an alternative explanation for the origin of life

First of all, in order to have an "alternative", one must have one first. Which we don't.
Secondly, I require an explanation of life's origins that:
- actually explains the process of how life came to be, unlike bare claims like "god dun it"
- is actually supported by rational, objective evidence
- can be tested properly
- which is falsifiable (which it will automatically be if it meets the previous 3 criteria).

Your religious beliefs, do not meet these criteria. Not even by a long shot.

, 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.

This has nothing to do with atheism and everything with evidence.
I get it... your butthurt that your personal prefered religion of choice isn't included in the natural sciences. But hey... that's not a problem with the science. It's a problem of your religion.

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,

I don't care what you call it. If you're wrong, you're wrong.
Evolution theory (ie: divergence of species through the process of descent with modification followed by selection) is an extremely solid and well-evidenced scientific theory - no matter what your religious beliefs are.

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.

What ad hominems?

 

[DogmaHunter]

As I said, not every sentence that uses the word "evolution" is refering to that biological theory that details the process by which living things diversify over generations.

Evolution theory is a theory of biology and it only deals with the development of existing life over generations.

You're being extremely juvenile and trollish.

 

[Clint Edwards]

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*​

Rigid, ha?
Tell me, are viruses alive?



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

I discussed your points with my friend, a full professor of microbiology at a prominent university.

There is controversy regarding viruses, as to whether they display all the criteria of a living organism, but they certainly die.

Otherwise, in the world of microbiology, the line between living and non living is pretty well defined.

He confirmed what I knew and havce stated.,

 

[Clint Edwards]

No, you aren't.
What you do is ad hoc rationalization by re-inventing the scriptures and re-interpreting them. And even adding to them at times - like "Eden was on another planet" and stuff, lol



What is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence.
And your science fiction-ish interpretation of your bible, is asserted without evidence.

Support your own nonsense. Live upto your burden of proof.
Don't ask me to do your homework.

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 ?

 

[Speedwell]

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 ?

Since most Creationists don't consider me to be a Christian, not a "real" one anyway, I feel qualified to answer that question. Keep in mind that under the rules of this forum participation by non-Christians is allowed.

1. I believe in God as creator of the universe and author of our existence.
2. I accept the theory of evolution as a plausible, well-evidenced scientific theory which does not conflict with my belief in God. Atheists, of course, have no belief in God for it to be in conflict with.
3. I reject "biblical" creationism as ignorant nonsense.
4. I don't want biblical creationism and its theology taught in public schools or given more official standing in public policy decisions than other views.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

When a belief, is so psychologically important to a person and that belief happens to be void of any reliable evidence to support, the person will develop very robust defense mechanisms, to protect it:

-denial
-confirmation bias
-intellectual dishonesty

It is too painful for some to acknowledge their belief may be wrong, so they put these defense mechanisms in overdrive, to protect it, at all cost.

 

[Clint Edwards]

That sentence literally makes ZERO sense.
If you don't know, then that means that there ARE NO explanations. So what are you talking about with the word "other"????

"i don't know" is also the exact opposite of a show-stopper position.
Just settling on some faith based unsupportable claim, like "god did it", THAT is what is the show stopper...............................

Especially if that position is being held dogmatically as part of some doctrine. Worse even, in fundamentalist religious circles, it even is so bad that not holding to that dogmatic position is a ticket to an eternal torture chamber.

I mean, for real dude......



So in your opinion, anyone without a phd in cosmology, particle physics, etc... is a sad person?

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 ? Do you have a beef with that ? Spit it out then.Your redefining what is stated, for your own dogmatic purposes is an old trick, still used, especially in the halls of a Jr. Hi school.

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.

Now, to your hyperbolic, ludicrous last sentence.

Any lay person can grasp the simple fundamentals that underlay most scientific disciplines. Those principles and a little reading will give, in most cases, a basic understanding.

In another post, where we were discussing the design and function of the universe, you self importantly stated that I had been "PROVED WRONG", not hardly,
my man.

Since I can afford little time here, and because of a neurological condition my typing is labored and abysmal. What would take someone else 5 minutes, can take me 45 minutes, thus I am slow to respond.

I have some 65 observations by a PhD in astronomy, university professor, that will, in the least, make your boasting on this matter, tenuous.

I will post them in the right place when I can ( I will find the thread, and your post ).

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.

 

[Clint Edwards]

Since most Creationists don't consider me to be a Christian, not a "real" one anyway, I feel qualified to answer that question. Keep in mind that under the rules of this forum participation by non-Christians is allowed.

1. I believe in God as creator of the universe and author of our existence.
2. I accept the theory of evolution as a plausible, well-evidenced scientific theory which does not conflict with my belief in God. Atheists, of course, have no belief in God for it to be in conflict with.
3. I reject "biblical" creationism as ignorant nonsense.
4. I don't want biblical creationism and its theology taught in public schools or given more official standing in public policy decisions than other views.

I don't want it taught in schools either, I think that is a red herring. Unless the Constitution is amended, a very arduous task, it won't happen.

I don;'t care what other people think about you being a Christian, that's between you and God.

As to creationism and discussion I think your basic position needs to be refined.

Do you believe that God had involvement and action related to creation, at all ?

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.

That, of course, begs the question related to how much more you have decided is nonsense.

I assume that you believe the virgin birth fits in that category, Mary became pregnant by parthenogenesis, or worse, she broke the Jewish law with someone who broke it as well, and everyone just lied like a rug afterward.

Were the miracles of Christ nonsense, and the Resurrection as well ?

 

[Speedwell]

I don't want it taught in schools either, I think that is a red herring. Unless the Constitution is amended, a very arduous task, it won't happen.

Good.

I don;'t care what other people think about you being a Christian, that's between you and God.

Good. But in my experience your view is rare among creationists.

As to creationism and discussion I think your basic position needs to be refined.

Do you believe that God had involvement and action related to creation, at all ?

Of course; in the beginning and continuously, on a different level of causality altogether than the mere natural causes which science studies.

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.

Not me--I'm not a Bible scholar. I am not qualified to make that determination unaided.

That, of course, begs the question related to how much more you have decided is nonsense.

I assume that you believe the virgin birth fits in that category, Mary became pregnant by parthenogenesis, or worse, she broke the Jewish law with someone who broke it as well, and everyone just lied like a rug afterward.

Were the miracles of Christ nonsense, and the Resurrection as well ?

No need to get nasty. I belong to a recognized Christian denomination with a well-known body of doctrine, including the virgin birth of Christ, His miracles and His death and physical resurrection. You may take my position on these matters to be summed up by the Nicene Creed, which I subscribe to without reservation.

 

[Clint Edwards]

Good.

Good. But in my experience your view is rare among creationists.

Of course; in the beginning and continuously, on a different level of causality altogether than the mere natural causes which science studies.

Not me--I'm not a Bible scholar. I am not qualified to make that determination unaided.

No need to get nasty. I belong to a recognized Christian denomination with a well-known body of doctrine, including the virgin birth of Christ, His miracles and His death and physical resurrection. You may take my position on these matters to be summed up by the Nicene Creed, which I subscribe to without reservation.

Sorry, I didn't intend to get nasty, I simply was drawing an assumption to a logical conclusion. I guess there was a reason why I told my employee's to never assume anything !

 

[Speedwell]

Sorry, I didn't intend to get nasty, I simply was drawing an assumption to a logical conclusion. I guess there was a reason why I told my employee's to never assume anything !

No harm done. I think what it is, is a logical conclusion based on a premise which doesn't apply to all Christians. Namely, that rejecting the literal historicity of Genesis inevitably puts one on a "slippery slope" leading to liberal apostasy. But if it's true at all, I think it can only be true for Protestants with their doctrine of Sola Scriptura. And watching the mainline Protestant denominations declining into oblivion would certainly give some credence to that view. Traditional Christians seem to have had much less theological difficulty dealing with modern science.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

Are there any living scientists who still hold to the steady state (alias continuous creation) hypothesis? I thought that most astronomers and cosmologists had given it up during the 1960s, after the discovery of quasars and the cosmic microwave background. Even Hermann Bondi, one of the founders of the steady-state cosmology, later abandoned it in favour of the Big Bang.

I have some 65 observations by a PhD in astronomy, university professor, that will, in the least, make your boasting on this matter, tenuous.
I will post them in the right place when I can ( I will find the thread, and your post ).

I look forward to reading them.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

I somehow don't think Protestants have a monopoly on Sola Scriptura.

And by way of a good example, have you talked to Colter lately?

(U.B. says it -- that settles it.)

 

[Speedwell]

I somehow don't think Protestants have a monopoly on Sola Scriptura.

And by way of a good example, have you talked to Colter lately?

(U.B. says it -- that settles it.)

Protestants invented it and I don't know of any other major Christian group who holds with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Protestants invented it and I don't know of any other major Christian group who holds with it.

No, they didn't.

It was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation, but not their invention.

That's like saying Tertullian invented the Trinity.

 

[Speedwell]

No, they didn't.

It was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation, but not their invention.

That's like saying Tertullian invented the Trinity.

LOL! That reminds me of another creationist poster around here who once tried to convince me that the Apostolic Fathers secretly believed in Sola Scriptura even though they taught something else.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I discussed your points with my friend, a full professor of microbiology at a prominent university.

There is controversy regarding viruses, as to whether they display all the criteria of a living organism, but they certainly die.

They denature, in terms of the camp that views them as not being alive. Like how proteins denature, losing their properties, so too do viruses break down.

Otherwise, in the world of microbiology, the line between living and non living is pretty well defined.

He confirmed what I knew and havce stated.,

It is still quite well defined, even considering viruses, because viruses don't have a metabolism. I think the only reason people come to disagree with the idea that viruses aren't alive is due to the fact that they have more traits of living things than most non-living things do, but nevertheless, you can't be missing a couple of the qualifications for being alive and still be considered to be alive.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I discussed your points with my friend, a full professor of microbiology at a prominent university.

There is controversy regarding viruses, as to whether they display all the criteria of a living organism, but they certainly die.

Otherwise, in the world of microbiology, the line between living and non living is pretty well defined.

He confirmed what I knew and havce stated.,

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.