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

[HitchSlap]

You're not alone.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

The Art of War by Sun Tzu. “Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.” “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles."

Words from old books are cool!

 

[HitchSlap]

Ok. I choose not to equivocate on Reality and Truth. (Whew! ...I feel so liberated now in saying that! )

 

[Snappy1]

Of course, your statement is surely debatable. If you understand little cosmology, then you understand that galaxies in relation to one another are not homogeneous in distribution through the universe, you also would know that galaxies, and there are different types, have stars in different locations, for instance the earth is in a stellar arm from the center of the galaxy, which is probably a massive black hole.

The location of the earth, i.e. our solar system, is in a more advantageous position for the survival of life than millions and millions of stars located in a different position. You say it is by chance based upon existing physical laws, I can't prove you wrong, can you prove me wrong ?

My position is simple on the evolution issue, there is very little evidence, direct or genetic,m for evolutionary connections above the family or maybe even at the genus level. It is a bridge too far, and there little evidence a bridge ever existed at all.

Do you think DNA testing can identify your immediate family members?

 

[AV1611VET]

Words from old books are cool!

First of all, Sun Tzu is in aitch.

Second of all:

Skeptics who identify issues with the traditionalist view point to possible anachronisms in The Art of War including terms, technology (such as anachronistic crossbows and the unmentioned cavalry), philosophical ideas, events, and military techniques that should not have been available to Sun Wu. Additionally, there are no records of professional generals during the Spring and Autumn period; these are only extant from the Warring States period, so there is doubt as to Sun Tzu's rank and generalship.

SOURCE

 

[HitchSlap]

First of all, Sun Tzu is in aitch.

Give me an aitch...

Second of all:



SOURCE

Well, what do you know, old books written by others than who their attributed to.

Who'da thunk?

 

[AV1611VET]

Give me an aitch...

It may just be the aitch educatees ridicule -- if you were truly saved.

 

[HitchSlap]

It may just be the aitch educatees ridicule -- if you were truly saved.

Give me an eeeee...

 

[DogmaHunter]

But what they're talking about doesn't make sense to me.

That's rather obvious. I doesn't make sense to me either.
We are not physicists, so that's not really surprising.

Yet, nukes explode and planes fly.


You don't get to invoke your ignorance on a topic as an argument against it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, but kids should start mastering the courses needed to eventually understand the ToE at an early age.

That class is called "biology".

They'll need to understand those equations that explain a single evolutionary change (of the million that must occur) that often fill a large blackboard.

1. no change "must" occur
2. no idea what "equations" you are talking about
3. sounds like you might want to freshen up on that good ol' biology as well

Of course they will also have to learn the other 999,999 equations as well.

ow, so you are talking about useless hindsight probabilities?

Edit: Ok, wait a minute. I just discovered that evolution is unable to use mathematics in it's theory. I should have guessed this when I ask what the "odds" were that evolutionary changes actually occur, and got the runaround.

The equations of evolution

Indeed, you are talking about that nonsense creationist propaganda that is infested with teleological and hindsight fallacies.

It assumes that all species that exist to had to exist. That they were meant to exist.
That's not the case at all.

As I said in the previous quote: no change in evolution "must" occur.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What is mind ?

I'ld say it is the conceptual label we have attached to the neural network that exists in an individual's brain.

There is no mind in materialism rock is no different than a dog both made out of atoms and thier atoms were all evolved from hydrogen right .

Well, that's clearly false.

Both a chair and a table are made out of wood, but clearly they are not the same thing.
And those are a lot more alike then dogs and rocks.

Your statement makes no sense at all.

Do you suggest that you have mind ?

Sure. If by "mind" you mean the consciousness that is produced by my brain.
If you mean some kind of "ghost" that exists independently from my brain / body - then no.

 

[Chinchilla]

To viruses, those without DNA must use a host with DNA to reproduce, correct ?

" All DNA exists for is to be transcribed". Thank you, that is my point. Transcribed for what reason ?

Because cellular "information" is communicated by chemical processes, that does;'t make it a lesser method than a computer using electricity for information distribution and direction. In fact it is infinitely more complicated.

Yes, it is all chemical reaction, but it is controlled chemical reaction, controlled by the transcribed "data" from the DNA, Correct ?

Please, how and where is this information transcribed ? Thanks !

I'ld say it is the conceptual label we have attached to the neural network that exists in an individual's brain.

Maybe your brain is just hypocrite and knows that he has cancer but is in denial and lying to himself what you think about that ?


Well, that's clearly false.

Both a chair and a table are made out of wood, but clearly they are not the same thing.
And those are a lot more alike then dogs and rocks.

Your statement makes no sense at all.



Sure. If by "mind" you mean the consciousness that is produced by my brain.
If you mean some kind of "ghost" that exists independently from my brain / body - then no.

How is it then that your brain can know that there is infection in your body and will try to get rid of it but you can not know that you have been infected or by what is that infection caused and where is it located?

If your brain would not be so selfish he would tell you " hey you have cancer go to doctor " and not after the cancer is alredy spread all over your body

Maybe brain could be hypocrite and just lie to himself and be in denial that he has cancer in body , what do you think about it ?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have made NO faith based assertion. I stated that those who believe in abiogenesis had no explanation for the required inherent information required for a functional precursor organism based upon the encoded DNA to RNA to function model of all life on earth, except for many viruses who must parasatize DNA to reproduce.

Nobody "believes" in scientific theories. Scientific theories are not "believed".

Abiogenesis as an event (as in: the emergence of life where the was no life) is a factual event. It actually happened. At one point there was no life and then there was.

What abiogenesis research are trying to find out is how it happened.

You wish to claim that God created life. That's neat. But you can't support that with evidence, nore is that something that can be investigated. This God can't also be shown to exist. It's a completely unfalsifiable, undemonstrable, untestable claim. So as a claim / explanation, it is completely useless.

Science indeed looks for a natural origin explanation in (bio)chemistry.
Not because it is dogmatically materialistic, but rather because that is something that can be investigated. Bio-chemistry actually exists.

If you can come up with a God-model that is actually testable etc, then scientists will happily subject that model to the same rigorous process of inquiry that all other testable ideas are run through.

Until then, what would be the point? There's nothing there to investigate....

I stated it as a fact, based upon my SCIENTIFIC study of the matter.

As I said already, if your only point is that abiogenesis isn't solved yet, then you are just stating the obvious. Nobody is claiming otherwise.

Obviously, by stating that I was inviting someone who could explain it within the framework of abiogenesis. No one did. I did hear about how I couldn't understand, how I was ignorant, etc, etc, ad nauseum. No one here yet has simply offered a reasonable solution to the problem, or even a totally unreasonable one. There are massive problems with abiogenesis, this is just the newest one.

Once more: abiogenesis is a puzzle that isn't solved (yet). Nobody is claiming otherwise.
That there are unanswered questions, is a given - not a secret.

It seems someone is operating in the faith realm, and that faith is being defended, but not with explanations.

Who would that be?
The one who simply acknowledges being ignorant on the origins of life?
Or the one who's believing undemonstrable, unsupportable claims about unsupportable God(s) creating life?

 

[DogmaHunter]

My OPINION is that, based upon the big bang, the resultant physical laws of the universe, the specific distribution of stars and design of the universe, the place of earth in the universe and in relation to the sun in our solar system

Hindsight / teleological fallacy.

Do you know the story of the two frogs chilling at a random pond when one says to the other "look how perfect this pond is for us.. surely it was created specifically for us"?

no more evidence for the natural creation of life as for the supernatural

That is utterly false.
There is a good amount of evidence that supports natural origins.
While evidence for the supernatural can't exist by definition of "supernatural", since that's unfalsifiable.

, I believe it began supernaturally

Why? Could it perhaps have to do more with your a priori religious beliefs as opposed to the "reasons" you are mentioning here?

Because somehow I'm not buying that you drew this conclusion based on the points you mentioned - specifically because those statements don't lead to god-conclusions at all.
But I'm quite certain that you already had your religious beliefs before supposedly thinking about the evidence. You already believed in religious creation, before looking into this evidence. Didn't you?

Further, Having had formal classes in the discipline of logic, and exposure to significant philosophy, both when I was an atheist,both these support the idea of a supernatural God

No logic leads to conclusions of unfalsifiable things.

It is really ultimately a choice

Only if you think "faith" is a good reason to accept something as true.
Otherwise, it is not a matter of choice, but rather a matter of following the evidence.

, based upon ones evaluation of the available evidence, or lack of said evidence, isn't it ? Pascals wager makes sense to me.

Pascals wager, makes no sense at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, it ultimately very logically says, " If I am right, I gain everything, and you gain nothing. If you are right, I lose nothing." So, why not bet on the possibility of winning everything ?

Because you are betting on an unfalsifiable model, which is as arbitrary as it gets.
Unfalsifiable models, are infinite in number.

Also, I would think that if this christian God exists and indeed is omniscient and values sincerity and true belief - he won't be very impressed by someone who just "bets" on "winning everything, just in case".

So, regardless of how fallacious the wager is, it also kind of goes against the spirit of the very religion you are "betting" on.

 

[DogmaHunter]

REALLY ? I don't quite understand. Something creating itself is a simpler explanation than something creating something ? A logic syllogism, nothing cannot create something, something exists, therefore something created everything.

Yes, really.

The "god" explanation, requires assuming the existence of rather extra ordinary entities.
The first, does not.

The explanation with the least assumptions, and all that....

 

[DogmaHunter]

How is it then that your brain can know that there is infection in your body and will try to get rid of it but you can not know that you have been infected or by what is that infection caused and where is it located?

It's called the immune system and it operates at bottom on a rather simple action-reaction basis. Creating anti-bodies and all that.

If your brain would not be so selfish he would tell you " hey you have cancer go to doctor " and not after the cancer is alredy spread all over your body
Maybe brain could be hypocrite and just lie to himself and be in denial that he has cancer in body , what do you think about it ?

Still not making any sense to me.
How is any of this related to the point I made about what i understand a "mind" to be?

 

[Chinchilla]

It's called the immune system and it operates at bottom on a rather simple action-reaction basis. Creating anti-bodies and all that.



Still not making any sense to me.
How is any of this related to the point I made about what i understand a "mind" to be?

Does everything have mind ? Plant , dog , human , ape , rock , dirt ?

Second question , why can't I just turn off sygnal from my broken foot so it does not hurt anymore with my brain after my leg has been treated by doctor and is in state of repairing . The further pain does not help me because it was there to make me notice that it's something wrong with it . It has been treated and I acknowledged it and would like to stop the pain from it . Why do I have to take morphine and not just stop it with my brain so it does not send sygnals to foot and gets sygnals in response all the time ?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Does everything have mind ? Plant , dog , human , ape , rock , dirt ?

No. Only those things that have a brain capable of that function.

Second question , why can't I just turn off sygnal from my broken foot so it does not hurt anymore with my brain after my leg has been treated by doctor and is in state of repairing . The further pain does not help me because it was there to make me notice that it's something wrong with it . It has been treated and I acknowledged it and would like to stop the pain from it . Why do I have to take morphine and not just stop it with my brain so it does not send sygnals to foot and gets sygnals in response all the time ?

How is that extremely bizar question in any way related to the point?

 

[Chinchilla]

No. Only those things that have a brain capable of that function.



How is that extremely bizar question in any way related to the point?

The second question is related because you said that your brain is your mind and that he is the dictator of everything which is happening in your body , so why can't he stop sending pain sygnals at your command but need to have his pain sygnals interrupted by morphine ? Unless you and your brain are two different things this does not make sense .


Back to first question , if mind happens only in brains as you said that means that this sequence of atoms in form of a brain have something which atoms in sequence of rock do not have . Since everything evolved from hydrogen , why some atoms are given "mind" when they are linked together and the other are not having " mind" if they come from the same source ?

Could you explain it as analogy that first earth was without form and void and God made order in everything , he ordered the sequence of no mind of atoms from rock to different sequence of atoms that have mind - brain and that's what Bible calls "formed man from ground and breath into him life " ?

 

[Ophiolite]

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. Billions of years of evolution for the barely functioning hot mess that cells are.

This is the best implicit argument against Design that I have read. Anytime. Anywhere. Thank you for the insight.