Posted on 06/09/2009 5:33:16 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
June 9, 2009 — “The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution.” That statement is not being made by creationists, but by science reporters describing work at Oregon State University that cast new doubt on the idea that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. The main idea: their leg bones and lungs are too different.
Science Daily’s report has a diagram of the skeleton showing...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
“There you go again, throwing up chaff. The question at hand is very simple:...”
Ummmm no, your entire premise is the chaff...
there’s no single concensus about the definition of creationism and YHAOS illustrated this very nicely by listing so many sources/definitions.
Period.
No matter how many times liberals stomp their feet about demanding to control semantics, definitions, science, etc.
it just ain’t gonna happen!
Some creationists believe the earth is younger (or older) than others do...just like some evolutionists believe evolution IS a form of intelligent design and a tool used by God, while other evolutionists are atheists, or even anti-theists.
The latter group has hijacked evolution to the point of ruin.
And that’s how liberalism is, it ruins anything it touches.
allmendream believes in both evolution and creationism but doesn’t realize it, and goes to extraordinary lengths of denying the latter, at any and all costs. The cult of evolution has rendered him incapable of rationally examining the subject of origins among other things.
“No, somewhere out there in the million-plus hits for “creationist,” you must be able to find someone using it in passing to refer to all Christians. If you guys are right, that should be a snap.”
I think you’ve seen this before:
**********************************************************
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/americans_overwhelmingly_suppo.html
Headline: “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Teaching Scientific Challenges to Darwinian Evolution, Zogby Poll Shows” From March 2006.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=719
**********************************************************
Free Republic Poll on Evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1706571/posts?page=63#63
**********************************************************
Creationism makes a comeback in US
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856224/posts
***********************************************************
Teaching creation and evolution in schools
Solid research reveals American beliefs
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/teaching.asp
************************************************************
Survey Finds Support Is Strong For Teaching 2 Origin Theories
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D9143BF932A25750C0A9669C8B63
************************************************************
Public Divided on Origins of Life
http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties
************************************************************
Americans Believe in Jesus, Poll Says (creation poll results included)
http://derekgulbranson.com/2005/01/17/americans-believe-in-jesus/
********************************************************
And you have to remember that you can’t forget to define “Christians” before even having this silly notion of yours pursued (about defining creationists as you and your ilk see fit)...as you point out on FR creationists can mean just about anything these days for reasons you assert about purposefully “blurring meaning”. (If you’re going to play that game, I’ll throw it back at you.)
Some people think they’re Christians by showing up in Rev. Wright’s church.
And some people thought Hitler was a Christian, because he read scripture to his masses in Nuremberg.
The fact is, if you actually believe Christ, what He said and taught and you understand that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, you can’t be anything BUT a creationist...i.e. God created any and all we know or will ever know. Just like the Pope obviously does btw.
There are people out there that believe God created all we know and evolution was the way he did it. An enormously large number of these people also attended public schools and received socialization and indoctrination as opposed to educations, and learned falsely that sheer conjecture was science and learned that evolution was science, if not scientific fact.
And many of these people, once beyond the grip of liberal indoctrinations have begun to actually be educated and have either by design or chance have been deprogrammed to the point they’re capable of now recognizing evolution as theory and not fact.
That’s exactly what heppened to me. I learned more in church, I learned more in places like FR, I learned more in general from various sources, including science classes overseas outside the clutches of the NEA indoctrinators.
And more and more are recognizing that intelligent design offers a much better explanation of origins. There are well documented examples of scientists setting out to disprove God or whatever, and through their own experiences and studies have discovered just the opposite.
People that demand science somehow be sterlized of God aren’t even remotely in it for the science, but 100% of the time are insecure in one way or another about God.
Or Christians...
or conservatives...
or whatever.
It reminds me very much of the pro-choice crowd. As long as the so-called choice is abortion, well then, it’s legitamized. Like the national organization for women is nothing at all what it seems...perhaps national organization for LIBERAL women maybe.
And the ACLU.
Same thing. A hijacked liberal sham and now has become the Anti-Christian liberal union.
The only people fooled by these organizations are the programmed, both the willfully and sadly the unwitting.
Liberalism is what it is, and evolution is the liberal position.
Yeah, I remember that last exchange we had. You began by demanding I check definitions, and ended by slinking off whining about there was no talking with someone who refused to see the difference between dictionary definition and ‘common usage.’
”Eight out of your own ten sources give the definition allmendream is using!”
Really?! Of the twelve (not ten) sources, and the fourteen definitions they embody, nine make no mention of a contradiction with evolution (one of the nine existed before Darwinian Evolution and therefore could not have contradicted or affirmed the theory), three imply a contradiction with Evolution, one flatly describes a contradiction with Evolution, and five include a reference to the distinct and individual ensoulment of each human at the time of conception, indicating a wider context to the definition than you apparently want to contemplate. How you can take away from that a finding favoring allmendream is a mystery for the ages. Oh wait . . . it can be done by ignoring context (something Masters of the Universe profess to absolutely abhor) and by cherry picking application.
No he has not. He's provided dictionary references that mostly support my idea of what "creationist" means. He's provided no citation for anyone using the word in normal speech--i.e., not a discussion of what the word means, but just as an undefined term--to mean anything other than an anti-evolution Genesis-based special creation believer.
Just because it's everybody YOU know, doesn't mean that it's everybody that anyone else knows.
This is ludicrous. It's in the definitions he provided! It's in the definitions I provided and allmendream provided.
It's what www.creationism.org says: "There really is no good scientific evidence supporting evolutionism at all; and there is no way that the Earth could be over 10,000 years old."
It's what www.creationist.org says: "Creationism is the truth about science so that all the facts of science and all scientific discoveries fit the creation model of origins....As well, since true science is creationist, it cannot be divorced from Scripture."
It's what the author of Evolution of a Creationist says: "This book describes Dr. Martin's personal journey from an evolution-trained scientist to a Bible-believing creationist. Dr. Martin examines many of the claims and theories of prominent evolutionists, comparing their often incredible, inconsistent, pseudo-scientific explanations of origins to the clear and simple description of the Creation as depicted in the Bible."
It's what www.creationists.org says: " it is overwhelmingly obvious that Genesis was meant to be taken in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record of what actually happened."
Want more? That's what I found in about 10 minutes, and I think I could go on all night. Surely if "everyone" uses your definition, you should be able to find a cite or two just as quickly.
What word would you use to describe someone who believes that a creator created the universe and life in it?
I'd call them a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, or whatever religion they are. Because I agree with YHAOS that those terms imply, by definition, a belief in a creator. That's why we don't need another term to describe it. That's why the term "creationist" has come to mean something other than that.
You seem to believe that repeating an unsupported assertion somehow proves a fact that stating the same unsupported assertion the first time failed to do. You’ve yet to demonstrate how wanting ‘to puke’ has damaged science in any manner whatsoever. Nor have you demonstrated how people, possessing no power in the matter, can impact the ‘progress’ of science education. You don’t have a case . . . just the assertion.
”Websters includes in their definition of Creationism their opposition to evolution.”
From the Preface to Webster’s Universal Dictionary, page xvi, under the heading Synonyms and Comparative Treatments:
(in part) ”Certain words are followed by a comparison of their meaning and usage with those of other words, not synonyms, with which they are in some degree related or may possibly be confused” . . .
In the definition, “opposed to evolution” is offered illustratively as a different theory of how existence began. You don’t know how to read a dictionary? The objection I have to the definition is that it begins, properly, with “In philosophy” but then goes on to compare Creationism, which is a philosophical tenet of Christianity, with Evolution, which is a scientific theory having no philosophical implications. Right? RIGHT?! It seems that Webster’s (in 1937) had no appreciation for the difference between a philosophical tenet and a scientific theory and their dissimilar functions. And so it seems (in 2009) neither do you.
”I am not “hijacking the lexicon” by referring to a Creationist as someone in direct opposition to the theory of evolution. I am using the common definition of words.”
See my post to Ha Ha Thats Very Logical (# 242).
In your dreams. You did refuse to see the difference between dictionary definition and common usage. It's not whining to note that.
Of the twelve (not ten) sources, and the fourteen definitions they embody,...
I get 11 relevant sources (what "creation" meant in 1828 is irrelevant) and 18 definitions. Of the 11 sources, 9 contain a definition that mentions the Bible, evolution, or both. You still ignore the difference between dictionary definition and usage. Are you seriously arguing that a lot of people use "creationist" to mean "someone who rejects traducianism"?
Got a cite yet?
Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution? – post #317, February 18, 2009
”You still ignore the difference between dictionary definition and usage.”
It has been my lifetime custom to consult current dictionaries to determine common usage, with a possible consultation of earlier versions for historical context. If you want to determine common usage by pulling it out of your butt, be my guest. Don’t expect my participation.
I know I ended the discussion for the reason you said. But I neither whined nor slinked. That's the part you imagined.
If you want to determine common usage by pulling it out of your butt, be my guest.
No, I prefer to do it by giving references to sources that discuss common usage (as I've done--see post 229) and citations of how people use the word in practice (see post 243 for several examples of how self-described creationists use the word).
Don’t expect my participation.
All I asked you to do is find a cite. Can I conclude that you've chosen to whine and slink away instead?
But aside from all that, just answer this: how can you accuse someone of hijacking the term to make creationists look bad, when they’re using the term in the same sense creationists themselves use it?
Called that one.....
Likewise, I'm sure.
Can you cite that the common usage is as YOU claim?
Something besides anecdotal?
Because there are multiple definitions. That doesn't mean that we can't use it to mean other definitions than the only definition that evos accept.
This whole discussion of semantics would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Creationists (non-evos if you will) have consistently referred back to the dictionary for the meanings to the words they use. The dictionary is a standard that anyone can access and it gets people on the same page.
The evos historically, have tended to make up their own special *as scientists use them* kind of definitions which makes pinning them down as to meaning like nailing jello to a wall.
They want to own the definitions so they can control the discussion.
A perfect example is this over the definition of the word *creationist*. The evos want it to mean the narrowest interpretation of YEC that they can find, thereby disallowing anyone who believes in creation of any different variety, (OEC for example).
So the evos appeal to what they call the *common usage* of the word, which has no support whatsoever, except that that's what they claim. We have been given no source to back up their claim that that is indeed common usage.
Now, what's interesting, is that while they demand the *common usage* for some terms when it suits them , they demand specialized definitions for other terms when it suits them. The definition for the word *theory* comes to mind.
Whenever the topic comes up the evos screech and howl about using *scientific terms* as *scientists use them*, as if science has a corner on the market for the definition of the word *theory*.
The word *theory* does have more than one specific definition, all of which are also legitimate.
But in this case, they consider it in their best interests to insist on the specific *used as scientists use it* definition for the word *theory*, as opposed to insisting on the *common usage* definition of the word *creationist*.
For all the ranting about the objectivity of scientists, and how they're trained in it, and how objective they are, they, of all people, should understand the importance of using standards to compare things to.
In the case of semantics, the non-evos consistently refer back to the dictionary definition as the standard. The evos consistently (or rather inconsistently, and hypocritically) pick and choose which source of the definition they are going to use today.
Likewise, if scientists have the privilege of choosing how to define the terms they use for themselves, and hold everyone else to that particular use of those words; then by the same token, creationists have the privilege of establishing the definitions they choose to use for themselves and hold others to that definition.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear sister in Christ!
By that quote Pope Benedict does not eschew creationism.
But by saying that evolution is a “truth that enriches our understanding of life and being and such” he most certainly does.
A creationist doesn’t think evolution is “truth”.
Otherwise look folks! According to YHAOS I am a creationist!
So, somewhere in all my comments, there’s a time when I took ONE scientist’s claim on something.......and then further down the page of this scientis’s article I conveniently ignored the SAME scientist’s other claim because I disagreed with it?
Yeah....you almost had something to say.
You really don't care what you say, do you? I gave you a source several posts back--remember the quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy?
The focus of this discussion is on a narrower sense of Creationism, the sense that one usually finds in popular writings (especially in America today). Here, Creationism means the taking of the Bible, particularly the early chapters of Genesis, as literally true guides to the history of the universe and to the history of life, including us humans, down here on earth.I also gave you four examples of people calling themselves creationists, by which they meant "the taking of the Bible, particularly the early chapters of Genesis, as literally true guides to the history of the universe and to the history of life." And yet you can still claim that it's the "evos" who are pushing that definition!
(By the way, I've never insisted that it be the "narrowest interpretation of YEC that I can find." OEC or YEC, I'm just talking about the "evolution didn't happen because the Bible says so" crowd.)
Can you cite that the common usage is as YOU claim?
Sure. I'll look for something besides a piece critical of creationists, since you'll just say that's the "evos" trying to control the definition; and besides someone calling themselves a creationist, since that doesn't seem to be good enough. Let's see...
From the Louisiana Times-Picayune, 9/22/07:
Vitter earmarked federal money for creationist groupFrom the New Yorker, 1999:
WASHINGTON -- Sen. David Vitter, R-La., earmarked $100,000 in a spending bill for a Louisiana Christian group that has challenged the teaching of Darwinian evolution in the public school system and to which he has political ties.
THE ACCIDENTAL CREATIONISTFrom the Wall Street Journal:
Why Stephen Jay Gould is bad for evolution.
FOUR months ago, when the Kansas Board of Education voted to cut evolution from the mandatory science curriculum, few people were more outraged than Stephen Jay Gould. Teaching biology without evolution is "like teaching English but making grammar optional," Gould said. The Kansas decision reeked of "absurdity" and "ignorance" and was a national embarrassment. The question of whether to teach evolution "only comes up in this crazy country," he told an audience at the University of Kansas after the decision.All of this is more or less true. But it's also true that, over the years, Gould himself has lent real strength to the creationist movement. Not intentionally, of course. Gould's politics are secular left, the opposite of creationist politics, and his outrage toward creationists is genuine. Yet, in spite of this stance—and, oddly, in some ways because of it—he has wound up aiding and abetting their cause.
An Islamic Creationist Stirs a New Kind of Darwinian StruggleFrom the comments to the WSJ article: "Surpising comments considering that science overwhemingly supports creationism and that no evidence exists that macroevolution has ever occurred."
Mr. Oktar Has Plenty of Fans in Turkey, but Biologists Beg to Differ
ISTANBUL -- As scientists around the world celebrate the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's seminal work on evolution, Adnan Oktar, a college dropout turned theorist of Islamic creationism, is working on the fifth volume of a 14-part masterwork that he says will bury Darwinism once and for all.
So now you have one reference to an Encyclopedia of Philosophy, four cites of what people mean when they call themselves creationists, and four cites from mainstream media, all reinforcing my claim that the common usage of "creationism" refers to anti-evolution Bible-based special creationism and not some broader meaning. Is that enough, or are you going to come back in another 20 posts and claim that it's the "evos" who are trying to impose their own definition of creationism?
Meanwhile...found a cite yet?
The manipulation and misuse of language to exert control over people was one of themes Orwell's “1984” explored and which has been so widely misunderstood and quoted.
We think and reason in words and if I can control what words mean and limit their use to a meaning that serves my purposes, I go a long way toward controlling how others think and it was on this subject that Orwell wrote, the destruction of the English language and the lose of the ability to think clearly as a result.
As you say, it is our agreement on a commonly accepted use of perhaps several definitions that allow us to communicate with each other.
“Likewise, if scientists have the privilege of choosing how to define the terms they use for themselves, and hold everyone else to that particular use of those words; then by the same token, creationists have the privilege of establishing the definitions they choose to use for themselves and hold others to that definition.”
So true! And if scientists and creationists can do that then each and every person in the world can and every word used will require a caveat or explanation from “The Dictionary of My Unique Definitions”.
Steven Gould could hardly be termed friendly to the beliefs of creationists of any definition so when he commented in his book, The Richness of Life, he was speaking from the view point of an experienced insider, a well recognized scientist.
On page 491, in a chapter discussing the discredited notion of craniology, Gould wrote about Paul Broca, an “exemplary scientist” who used “numbers not to generate new theories but to illustrate a priori conclusions”.
Gould concludes, “By what right, other than our own biases, can we identify his prejudice and hold that science now operates independently of culture and class?”
Yet posters here will insist that science today has somehow freed its self from the biases and conclusions of the world around it, and as practiced by the products of that world, so that it is “objective” but by what means has science done what it never been able to do in it's past?
Every profession has it's “jargon” that it uses internally to communicate amongst members but it has no right to attempt to force others to adopt it to support their beliefs.
Thanks for the your thoughts, always welcome and appreciated!
So I do appreciate your posts! Metmom’s too.
Well, judging by the increasing length of your replies, I assume your CT surgery came off without a hitch. Praise the Lord!
Easiest and quickest surgery I ever had.
The worst part is having my hand wrapped up for so long. It’s a nuisance even though necessary.
I’ll be much more out of commission when I get my other hand done as that’s my dominant hand.
I’ve given you numberless cites. Unlike some, I’ve not cherry-picked only the ones that precisely fit my viewpoint. You choose to cover your eyes and go “La, la, la, la.” (I know, mixed metaphor. This is what happens when you have ‘discussions’ in a written form)
”I prefer to do it by giving references to sources that discuss common usage”
The purpose of a dictionary is to provide the meaning of the words used in a particular language (they also provide related information in many instances, of course). Dictionaries are, in fact, the definitive authority for the meaning of words. Since some words tend to change somewhat over time (or change considerably on occasion), the usual practice (if common usage is the aim) is to select dictionaries of recent publication. This I have done. But, that’s not good enough for you. You find discontent with the definitions. Why is that? You don’t find that the definitions sufficiently conform to your targeted outcome? So, in typical Liberal fashion, you attack and slander anything that thwarts your desires. Even dictionaries. I take it, then, that you denounce dictionaries as perverse tools of the rabid and wicked Christian Right? Wouldn’t have one in the house?
It’s usually in a power struggle for control of people’s lives (and their money) that we see the sort of political shin-kicking going on in this thread. Concomitant with this struggle is the obsession over gaining control of the lexicon. You would cheerfully overturn all the norms and conventions of language and meaning to attain dominance. Not only must you control the lives and wealth of Christians, you must dictate the precise meaning of every word they use. You already have a word for Creationist that fits your agenda: CREOTARD. Use it in good health.
”Can I conclude that you've chosen to whine and slink away instead?”
You can conclude whatever the forum rules permit you to conclude, but no, you may not conclude I’ve left the thread, as the above attests.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.