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

[Clint Edwards]

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.)

If one uses " I don't know" as an excuse to not explore and consider other possible explanations for what you don't know, then it is sad.

As an example, there are a number of propositions of why the universe is, BB, open/closed universe, steady state, brane. If someone who alleges they are curious and objective is asked why is there is a universe , what idea's about have you considered, and their response is "I don't know" and "none", it is sad.

 

[Brightmoon]

If one uses " I don't know" as an excuse to not explore and consider other possible explanations for what you don't know, then it is sad.

As an example, there are a number of propositions of why the universe is, BB, open/closed universe, steady state, brane. If someone who alleges they are curious and objective is asked why is there is a universe , what idea's about have you considered, and their response is "I don't know" and "none", it is sad.

Stating Goddidit as the answer to a scientific inquiry is a science stopper.

 

[Non sequitur]

If one uses " I don't know" as an excuse to not explore and consider other possible explanations for what you don't know, then it is sad.

As an example, there are a number of propositions of why the universe is, BB, open/closed universe, steady state, brane. If someone who alleges they are curious and objective is asked why is there is a universe , what idea's about have you considered, and their response is "I don't know" and "none", it is sad.

Nice strawman.

Nobody on the other side of your fence has not explored nor not considered other possible explanations. They just came to a conclusion you don't like. That's all it is.

 

[Clint Edwards]

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

Here's the analogy again:

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.​

Biochemical reactions take place, and the cell functions, indisputable.

However, the context for me has always been for me in this conversation, the alleged precursor organism of abiogenesis.

Life as we know is based upon DNA , having complicated encoded information that is transcribed, and through chemical reactions directs the function of the cell.

The question I have asked, is where did the complicated information, and the ability to transcribe it come from for that very first organism ?

If one takes a little time to learn about the information encoded in the two strands of DNA, how it is transcribed by the cell so the cell can function it is quite amazing process.

It is also precise, precise in that its very detailed encoded information is made to control a whole host of very complicated chemical reactions so the cell survives.

The alleged precursor organism would have to have information and a way to "read" it to live and reproduce.

People get really hung up on the word information, because it seemingly is hostile to the cherished blind random chemical reaction narrative.

But there it is. The operation of a cell may be blind, it may be based on chemical reactions, but it isn't random, and it is based upon complicated information passed on to it at it';s creation.

So, the alleged precursor organism created by blind random forces would have from the start had to have information and a way to apply it to function,
survive.

Blind chemical reaction, sure. Uncontrolled, chaotic blind chemical reaction, no. The chaos is controlled by information used by the organism.

In that alleged very first organism, that functioned and reproduced, by using some form of information that it "read", utilized properly in it's function, had to come from somewhere.

A simple question. Wood chippers and piles of wood chips are great, but they don't address the issue.

Whether the process is blind and random is irrelevant, blind and random forces somehow created complicated information before life existed, or at exactly the same moment life popped into existence, with a way to process it in place, how ?

 

[Speedwell]

People get really hung up on the word information, because it seemingly is hostile to the cherished blind random chemical reaction narrative.

LOL! Only because the term is so frequently misused by creationists. To be sure, it's become something of a knee-jerk reaction whenever a creationist starts talking about information. I pity the poor creationist who gets it right (if there ever is one) he'll have a hard time getting a hearing.

But there it is. The operation of a cell may be blind, it may be based on chemical reactions, but it isn't random, and it is based upon complicated information passed on to it at it';s creation.

So, the alleged precursor organism created by blind random forces would have from the start had to have information and a way to apply it to function,
survive.

Blind chemical reaction, sure. Uncontrolled, chaotic blind chemical reaction, no. The chaos is controlled by information used by the organism.

In that alleged very first organism, that functioned and reproduced, by using some form of information that it "read", utilized properly in it's function, had to come from somewhere.

A simple question. Wood chippers and piles of wood chips are great, but they don't address the issue.

Whether the process is blind and random is irrelevant, blind and random forces somehow created complicated information before life existed, or at exactly the same moment life popped into existence, with a way to process it in place, how ?

You haven't defined "life" for the purpose of making your point, but I think it unlikely that life "popped." There is unlikely to be a hard line, a qualitative distinction, between "non-living" complex biochemistry and a "living" simple proto-cell. But in any case, the information it contained would have been brought to it by the biochemicals out of which it formed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If one uses " I don't know" as an excuse to not explore and consider other possible explanations for what you don't know, then it is sad.

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......

As an example, there are a number of propositions of why the universe is, BB, open/closed universe, steady state, brane. If someone who alleges they are curious and objective is asked why is there is a universe , what idea's about have you considered, and their response is "I don't know" and "none", it is sad.

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

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

If one uses " I don't know" as an excuse to not explore and consider other possible explanations for what you don't know, then it is sad.

I don't see why you would think that. With regard to abiogenesis "we don't know", but we are looking. Perhaps some light reading?

Credit to /u/maskedman3d on reddit for compiling this list of sources for some of the work being done with regard to abiogenesis

___________________
Early Earth Chemistry:
___________________

• On the early chemical history of the Earth and the origin of life. By Harold C. Urey
• Physical conditions on the early Earth
• Analysis of early atmosphere chemistry from zircon crystals.

• New research from the University of Maryland, the University of St. Andrews, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the University of Leeds and the Blue Marble Space Institute of Science suggests that long ago, Earth's atmosphere spent about a million years filled with a methane-rich haze.
• CH4 in the prebiotic atmosphere would have permitted formation of HCN, Hydrogen cyanide
• Amino acids could have been synthesized in prebiotic atmospheres containing CH4, CO, and CO2

____
RNA:
____

• Triplet substrates allow the ribozyme to synthesise its own catalytic subunit '+' and '-' strands in segments and assemble them into a new active ribozyme.

• Quantitative measurements of reaction rates show that RNA can be as efficient a catalyst as protein.

___
Amino Acids:
___

• Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self-replication through a hypercyclic network.

_______________________________
Lipids, cell membranes and protocells:
_______________________________

• Self-assembling surfactant structures may consequently provide a model system for studies of prebiotic chemistry.

• Thermodynamically controlled peptide binding of lipid vesicles is possible, thus leading to an increase in the molecular complexity of lipid vesicles.

• Formation of lipid compounds during Fischer-Tropsch-type synthesis from aqueous solutions of formic acid or oxalic acid.

• Membrane domains may therefore provide the link between protocells and the RNA/DNA-world.

___
Metabolism:
___

• rTCA is network-autocatalytic from any of its species implies that opportune condensations into the cycle from smaller molecules are amplified

• Primordial initiation reaction for a chemoautotrophic origin of life.

___
Homochirality:
___

• Data for Trp and other amino acids and amino acid mixtures show that homochiral sequences are produced preferentially if compared with a random distribution.

Observed Natural Occurrence of Molecules:

• Cyanopolyynes, like those produce by the Miller–Urey experiment, found in the diffuse interstellar medium.

• 54 carbon-containing compounds have been identified in the volcanic juvenile ash

Generation of Molecules:

• Hydrothermal vent environments are well suited for organic synthesis. Even biomolecules such as amino acids can be synthesized exergonically in hydrothermal ecosystems.

• Formose reaction to generate sugar intermediates that are converted to reactive amino acid thioesters is discussed.

• Endogenous, exogenous and impact-shock sources of organics could each have made a significant contribution to the origins of life.

• Autocatalytic reactions generate large molecular species in abundance.

• Observation suggests that prebiotic monomers could have oligomerized in the vicinity of submarine hydrothermal vents on primitive Earth.

Replication of Molecules:

• Some GARD vesicles display a significantly higher replication efficiency than most others. GARD thus represents a simple model for primordial chemical selection of mutually catalytic sets.

• The GARD model can serve as a platform for investigating the dynamics of self-organization mechanisms in molecular evolutionary processes.

• Kinetically enhanced recruitment of simple amphiphilic molecules, as well as about the spontaneous growth and splitting of assemblies, results in a complex population behavior.

• Kinetic evidence that cross-catalytic self-replication of complementary templates can proceed with an efficiency similar to that of autocatalytic self-replication of self-complementary templates

• Continuous in vitro evolution makes it possible to maintain laboratory “cultures” of catalytic molecules that can be perpetuated indefinitely.

I don't know. Seems like a lot of science going on for something we freely admit "we don't know" about.

 

[Non sequitur]

"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...............................

Obviously you don't understand that we can happily accept that we can't understand God and don't know. That is used quite frequently and is fine. It's inherent. Cuz it is.

Unlike how why the universe, which we- wait... gimme a second... you see it's two unknowns... there's this book... um... it's just different levels of accepting unknowns... we know we don't and can't know one, and the other could be known or may never be... hold on, there's a take down coming... one more minute... you are sad. Boom.

*mic drop*

 

[Aman777]

This makes no sense.

God told us you would say this thousands of years ago. 1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Thanks for confirming God's Holy Word.

 

[Aman777]

This makes no sense.

BTW, the 3 who agree with you are just as "willingly ignorant" as you. Amen?

 

[HitchSlap]

BTW, the 3 who agree with you are just as "willingly ignorant" as you. Amen?

"In the street of the blind, the one-eyed man is called the Guiding Light".

Amen?

 

[Aman777]

the problem is that no holy book creation stories agree with natural phenomena. Including the Bible versions

False, since God tells us of recently discovered scientific facts in Genesis One, which no ancient man could have possibly known. The problem is with the ancient Hebrew traditional view which is obviously wrong since Daniel 12:4 tells us that only the people of the last days have the "increased knowledge" to understand.

Genesis One agrees in every way with every discovery of mankind.

 

[Clint Edwards]

LOL! Only because the term is so frequently misused by creationists. To be sure, it's become something of a knee-jerk reaction whenever a creationist starts talking about information. I pity the poor creationist who gets it right (if there ever is one) he'll have a hard time getting a hearing.

You haven't defined "life" for the purpose of making your point, but I think it unlikely that life "popped." There is unlikely to be a hard line, a qualitative distinction, between "non-living" complex biochemistry and a "living" simple proto-cell. But in any case, the information it contained would have been brought to it by the biochemicals out of which it formed.

I don´t know what information is, so, just enlighten me. So, biochemicals create information, OK, lets explore that. Two, or a hundred chemicals reacting together can create information, and the process by which that information is used so that various possible options of chemical reactions are controlled by time, and environment. Further, this information is created so that one chemical reaction supports another, does not hinder another, and many, many chemical reactions work together in extremely complex ways to support a living cell.

Since the precursor organism did not inherit this information, no long strands of encoded DNA, no predetermined mechanism to utilize this information, this functioning organism was the result of random chemical reactions that coming together, somehow, somewhere in just the right environment developed all the that perfectly suited the precursor organism so that all its various functions were co ordinated, randomly, by blind chemical reactions, to produce a living organism.

OK ! Got it !

I define life exactly as your Jr Hi biology reacher did

This is actually another perfect example, because the use of "kind" is not at all consistent among creationists. If you ask 5 different creationists for a definition of "kind", you'll get 6 different answers.

 

[HitchSlap]

God told us you would say this thousands of years ago. 1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Thanks for confirming God's Holy Word.

“This planet has — or rather had — a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much all of the time.”

Thanks for confirming what Douglas Adams had to say almost forty years ago.

 

[Aman777]

...According to Panda.org, which is part of the WWF, there are two types of elephants: the Asian and the African. Obviously if we believe the Bible, there would have to be four elephants on the ark.

False, since the Bible does NOT say that elephants were brought to our Earth from Adam's. What is shows is that you have no idea what Scripture teaches. Want to show us chapter and verse? Of course not.

 

[Aman777]

Aman777 said: ↑
Not when God's account of the creation in Genesis AGREES with Science and History

It doesn't.

Correction: Your view doesn't. It's probably because you have the mistaken idea that the present Cosmos is the only one God created. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

There's nothing magical or mysterious about a demonstrable natural process.

Then tell us ln the fewest words possible How and When mindless Nature installed the highest form of intelligence into anything, since mindless Nature is neutral, having no force to accomplish anything and having NO intelligence to impart. Magic is the only way such a thing could possibly happen and also WHY it can never be repeated.

 

[Clint Edwards]

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.

Evolutionistś never disagee with one another '? You claim, authoritative decree, the right language for discussing these issues. Thatś fine, and where I know it I use it. Nevertheless, not using the accepted word, or name does not invalidate the concept in discussion one way or another.

Lawyers and ice cream sellers use different words for the same ideas. They operate in different spheres with different linguistic styles and reference points.

Linneaus and his followers did an excellent job in classifying life according to very specific attributes, you use his language, and it is the accepted proper one.
However in my experience with Koine Greek, I have learned that sometimes the exact meaning cannot be translated for a word into English because that word doesn´t exist in English.

Therefore, if a conversation is desired there has to be clarification of terms.

On the other hand, those who know the evolutionary dictionary and how to apply fall into the ever present in the background chimera of derision and smug superiority. Great for their ego, but it destroys any meaningful. Exchange.

From years of experience I have found that many young evolutions get angry, and derisive if you don accept what they propose as factual truth.

Others like muslims on jihad, try to verbally destroy theism, especially Christianity. That is their mission, to destroy the infidel who will not accept what they know is the truth.

They lurk in religious groups, and they hate religion. and they are lurking here.

 

[HitchSlap]

Evolutionistś never disagee with one another '? You claim, authoritative decree, the right language for discussing these issues. Thatś fine, and where I know it I use it. Nevertheless, not using the accepted word, or name does not invalidate the concept in discussion one way or another.

Lawyers and ice cream sellers use different words for the same ideas. They operate in different spheres with different linguistic styles and reference points.

Linneaus and his followers did an excellent job in classifying life according to very specific attributes, you use his language, and it is the accepted proper one.
However in my experience with Koine Greek, I have learned that sometimes the exact meaning cannot be translated for a word into English because that word doesn´t exist in English.

Therefore, if a conversation is desired there has to be clarification of terms.

On the other hand, those who know the evolutionary dictionary and how to apply fall into the ever present in the background chimera of derision and smug superiority. Great for their ego, but it destroys any meaningful. Exchange.

From years of experience I have found that many young evolutions get angry, and derisive if you don accept what they propose as factual truth.

Others like muslims on jihad, try to verbally destroy theism, especially Christianity. That is their mission, to destroy the infidel who will not accept what they know is the truth.

They lurk in religious groups, and they hate religion. and they are lurking here.

lol

 

[Clint Edwards]

LOL! Only because the term is so frequently misused by creationists. To be sure, it's become something of a knee-jerk reaction whenever a creationist starts talking about information. I pity the poor creationist who gets it right (if there ever is one) he'll have a hard time getting a hearing.

You haven't defined "life" for the purpose of making your point, but I think it unlikely that life "popped." There is unlikely to be a hard line, a qualitative distinction, between "non-living" complex biochemistry and a "living" simple proto-cell. But in any case, the information it contained would have been brought to it by the biochemicals out of which it formed.

I don´t know what information is, so, just enlighten me. So, biochemicals create information, OK, lets explore that. Two, or a hundred chemicals reacting together can create information, and the process by which that information is used so that various possible options of chemical reactions are controlled by time, and environment. Further, this information is created so that one chemical reaction supports another, does not hinder another, and many, many chemical reactions work together in extremely complex ways to support a living cell.

Since the precursor organism did not inherit this information, no long strands of encoded DNA, no predetermined mechanism to utilize this information, this functioning organism was the result of random chemical reactions that coming together, somehow, somewhere in just the right environment developed all the that perfectly suited the precursor organism so that all its various functions were co ordinated, randomly, by blind chemical reactions, to produce a living organism.


OK ! Got it !



if a mass of dead chemicals becomes alive, I would call that popping. You are either alive or dead, a very rigid line. You didn´t see the mad scientist who created his monster from body parts say when the lightning was raging, well, he is about 3 percent alive, by midnight he should be 100 percent aiive.

You are either alive or dead, a mass of chemicals is either alive or dead.

I define life as your Jr. hi biology teacher did.