Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Whatever.This is a thread topic about creationists making up private definitions of words. "Kind" is a perfect example. So I thank you for that.
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?
OH, "atheistic history" just means any history not written by David Barton or R. J. Rushdooney.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.
I think the term you're looking for is: historical revisionism.To clarify, the context in which the term was used had nothing to do with the history of atheism. Rather, the individual in question was using the term to suggest that the modern study of history was under the influence of atheists. They seemed to be suggesting that atheists were re-writing history. It was a weird discussion.
But if a person was to contextually discuss the history of atheism, then using the phrase history of atheism would be most clear.
And then there are Christian historians like Barton and Rushdooney, who do it without new evidence.I think the term you're looking for is: historical revisionism.
From Wikipedia:
"In historiography, the term historical revisionism identifies the re-interpretation of the historical record. It usually means challenging the orthodox views held by professional scholars about a historical event, or introducing new evidence, or of restating the motivations and decisions of the participant people. The revision of the historical record reflects the new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation, which produce a revised history. In dramatic cases, revisionism involves a reversal of older moral judgments about heroes and villains."
I agree 100%.
For instance, I try to explain that "kind" means "genus" (not "species") and get some bologna reply that scientists don't really use that word to mean anything.
That is a very overbroad statement based on YOUR experience. My best friend, a full professor of microbiology at a well known Ca university, who also believes in intelligent design, would report a totally different experience. Again your put down of creationists as ¨anti scientific types ¨ is ridiculous, guilt by association at itś best. Some are, some aren´t. I believe in intelligent design. I have been debating evolutionists for years on that mystical magical first evolutionary step, the process of abiogenesis. I do quite well, especially when they are forced to admit they haven´t a clue as to how their precursor organism came about. I debate them using scientific principles, and available research. That is hardly being an ignorant (implied) ¨non scientific type ¨.In my experience most creationists and other anti-scientific types really do not understand the very theories they are so vehemently against. Scientific disciplines use technical language and oftentimes these terms are misunderstood to the point that these people feel free to generate their own meanings.
Do you mean genus, or family ? There are intelligent creationists who use one, or the other.But when I intone with "genus," I usually get a straight-out denial.
Even when I back it up with the online etymological dictionary.
My suggestion … if I was an academian trying to point out that the Ark was too small to house all those animals for a year … is to first find out what "kind" means to the person I'm talking to (i.e., "species" or "genus"), then tell them that there's still too many of either to fit aboard the Ark.
And doesn’t mean anything to a scientist either because none of that is what scientists study. They study natural phenomena.Okay … there's no consistency of usage.
What's your point?
Would you believe it if there was?
If every Christian believed in creatio ex nihilo, would you still be an agnostic?
Or would you, as I suspect, be against every Christian?
And if you think I'm being facetious, consider this:
Every single Christian ever born, living today, and will become one tomorrow believes IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.
And guess what? it doesn't mean a thing to unbelievers.
And I suppose for all those years you have been using the same disingenuous, passive-aggessive, unscientific, sneaky rhetoric of trying to associate abiogenesis with evolution. And then the OP wonders why evolutionists wind up attacking the Creationist. It's because of reprehensible, dishonest, in-your-face prevarication of this type.That is a very overbroad statement based on YOUR experience. My best friend, a full professor of microbiology at a well known Ca university, who also believes in intelligent design, would report a totally different experience. Again your put down of creationists as ¨anti scientific types ¨ is ridiculous, guilt by association at itś best. Some are, some aren´t. I believe in intelligent design. I have been debating evolutionists for years on that mystical magical first evolutionary step, the process of abiogenesis. I do quite well, especially when they are forced to admit they haven´t a clue as to how their precursor organism came about. I debate them using scientific principles, and available research. That is hardly being an ignorant (implied) ¨non scientific type ¨.
I'm surprised you have not encountered an answer before, but since you haven't your request is a sound one.To be fair, the point of evolution is never really clear. And too often we are all using whatever we personally think about what evolution means when we come to the discussion. I've heard countless statistics from evolutionists about the age of this or the time of that and none of it is in the least consistent. So being fair here, it happens on all sides. Maybe now you should come out with a premise of what you believe evolution to be so that the other side is clear from the beginning what is being argued.
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.
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.
I agree 100%.
As the saying goes:
Don't argue with an academian; he will drag you down to his level, then beat you to death with experience.
But … yes … I won't argue with an academian on his turf.
If he isn't willing to accept working definitions of words in the Bible, then his terminology can take a hike too.
For instance, I try to explain that "kind" means "genus" (not "species") and get some bologna reply that scientists don't really use that word to mean anything.
Or at least that's what I interpret what they're saying.
So if a child doesn't understand it, then we get to dissmiss it for that reason?Ya -- get ready for "descent with modification" or "change in alleles over time" or "change in the frequency of alleles over time" or some other phrase that a child can't understand -- let alone a Philadelphia lawyer.
I'll pass.If you believe that "kind" means "genus", then just use the word "genus" when discussing matters of biology.
We do.So if a child doesn't understand it, then we get to dissmiss it for that reason?
I have been debating evolutionists for years on that mystical magical first evolutionary step, the process of abiogenesis.
I do quite well, especially when they are forced to admit they haven´t a clue as to how their precursor organism came about.
I debate them using scientific principles, and available research. That is hardly being an ignorant (implied) ¨non scientific type ¨.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?