The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution

I'd advise you not to get in the habit of accepting too many of the definitions you'll encounter here.For example, you've been informed that jar is a 'christian'. EvC has its own definition, and Ringo is also a 'christian' by EvC standards.Now read through this thread, and decide for yourself if anyone else would apply the term to them.http://EvC Forum: Christianity Today: Atheism is the only rational outlook. -->EvC Forum: Christianity Today: Atheism is the only rational outlook.I shan't post highlights. It speaks for itself. Or rather, they speak for themselves.And as for 'abiogenesis'? A simple test to see whether or not they actually consider the definition valid would be to wait a few weeks and advance the notion that "God created life" is a legitimate hypothesis of abiogenesis. Shoot, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if one of them jumps silly straight away and says I'm not using the term correctly.

crashfrog The answer to the first question is the person writing or speaking most always decides what terms they're going to use. They can choose to use terms with specific meanings or vague terms. They can try to be accurate or deceptive.You seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to throw words around as if they had absolutely no meaning whatsoever. If a term has no meaning, why use it in the first place?To the second question, I'd say I'm not aware of any earthly entity I would recognize as having such authority. I personally defer to Scripture when using this term, but I know it is common practice to broaden the term to include some pretty unorthodox and obscure cults. However, it is not common practice to broaden the term to include every last person on the planet!I maintain that nobody with any familiarity with the term could,after reading those posts, honestly apply it to the authors thereof. (Unless there was an indication that those views were no longer held.) Except, naturally if they invoked the private EvC definition... which is not a particularly honest thing to do.People are going to write what they're going to write. And those who read must decide for themselves what's acceptable. I hope to assist any who would make a well-informed decision. I don't fear anyone reading that thread will consider me deceitful in the least. Some may be angry with me, and some may wish to dispute.The term we're discussing is well-known. I would be a little curious to see what manner of definitions you guys would bring out.You can try to make this a matter of my personal opinion. You'll fail if you do. This is obviously a matter of (im)properly employing a word in the English language.Edited by CTD, : Spelling and punctuation

anglagard I would suggest instead of making false accusations, you read the thread.When did I act as judge, jury, and executioner? I merely invited readers to observe that in order to apply the term 'christian' to persons who make posts of this type, one needs a peculiar definition of the term. Most peculiar. Where is the judging, jurying, & executing in that?And I care not for any new definitions of 'blasphemy' you may care to offer. I'd have no choice but to conclude you'd use it about as accurately as you use other terms.

I did not dispute that they qualify for the EvC definition. Not for one minute. I do not intend to.From what I've seen, evolutionists don't believe in fixity of language any more than they believe in fixity of species. I think this case demonstrates what I mean.crashfrog I don't want to bicker about definitions. Your own definition would indicate that we must determine whether or not a claim is 'honest', and in these circumstances I don't think you want to go there.

crashfrog How could this be? I cut & pasted directly from your post. The words are still there, every one of them. How can I accept credit for them? I cannot.I guess now we're supposed to get bogged down defining 'your'? Puh-leeze!

iceage Both are fixed. It is a question of degree.Even most evolutionists do not claim a parent and offspring change species in one generation. And language would be worthless if words were in the habit of changing their meanings more than once per day. And what would the market for dictionaries be?Hmmm... I had not considered the role of the dictionary publishers. Perhaps there's an optimal amount of change in the language which they think will promote sales... This could be the beginning of a new conspiracy theory!** Pardon my abuse of the term 'theory' - just ain't funny if I apply more accurate language. Besides, they abused it first!

This is why a forum needs private messaging. I tried to let this pass, but it won't do.I am not here to offer new definitions. One may suppose all sorts of things. If you want to get it right, either keep guessing or find out what the Scripture says.Regardless of how you choose to suppose I think, I have already stated that common use of the term is pretty broad. It is not so broad as to include anyone and everyone.Do you maintain that as evolutionists, "folks like Francis Collins and many Catholics, Anglicans, etc." would be expected to insult all Christians in the manner one witnesses in that thread?I have to admit I'm a bit surprised at how loyal the opposition has been in this case. It's not easy to repair a reputation.You guys should probably start a new thread. While I think the general practice of redefining every other word is a key evolutionist strategy for promoting abiogenesis, big bang, & evolution "theories", it's a stretch to discuss this particular example to such an extent.

trossthree Abiogenesis is a story invented to circumvent the Law of Biogenesis and keep the concept of spontaneous generation alive.The construction of the word is consistent with your understanding, but it has simply never been used to describe the historic creation events.You'll note that we already had a term for spontaneous generation also, but it had been demonstrated to be a false concept, so a name change was implemented to make it appear more 'scientific'. How impressive!As spontaneous generation failed time after time, the scales were reduced. Maggots were eliminated, then bacteria, all the way down to practically nothing. They got down to some extremely basic molecules before they had any success "creating life" in labs. Now they're trying to work up to a cell.Naturally they've redefined 'life' at least a couple of times along the way to make it look like they're succeeding. They hit some barriers working with DNA, so a lot of focus shifted to RNA when they figured out it might be easier.You may be wondering why anyone would bother redefining a term to include something it formerly excluded. In this case it's simply juvenile: they want to misportray any creationist who rejects the fowl, unscientific concept as ignorant and irrational. If you care, you can find just such an attempt earlier in this very thread.It also gives them an out anytime the subject comes up for discussion. They just refuse to discuss actual abiogenesis and argue there definition 'til the cows come home. Never struck me as an intellectually profitable way to spend time.I'd like to point out that most definitions aren't learned from dictionaries. As children we learn new words at a mind-boggling pace, and with a very high degree of accuracy. Use the force, tross (trust your instinct). We don't do our best learning by reading dictionaries. They are valuable tools, but our brains are better.You speak English. You know what a fact is. Philosophers have tried to improve/confuse our understanding of reality for centuries. There is a reality, and we learn about it through our senses as well as by communicating.Science enters the picture, and here comes the confusion. I could link you to posts proclaiming science as the ultimate form of knowledge, and I'm confident you've noticed the hype yourself. Science is simple. Small children practice it all the time, and even animals are guilty. Science is one of several methods of learning, and over time it has been formalized. This is good. Any analysis of learning that helps us understand the process is good. It also allows for consistency and helps us spot errors.But the hype is unwarranted. History is at least the equal of science when it comes to providing information. One cannot even learn science without employing history. You can't very well repeat an experiment if you don't know it happened, can you? Even if it happened last week, it's part of the past, part of history. But there is no simple formula one can apply to evaluate history.We also "know" people and animals. It's easy to dismiss the hype on science if one asks "Would I rather know my parents or know everything about botany?"I've been accused of devaluing science because I don't worship it. I do value all forms of knowledge fairly highly, but I won't overestimate any class just because others want me to. It is a sin to reject truth, so how could I toss aside any valid scientific fact?What I will readily toss aside is a flawed conclusion, scientific or otherwise.As for God, I see no reason to restrict Him regarding biology. If He chooses to be biological or otherwise I see nothing to prevent Him.In many ways, God is beyond scientific investigation. In the Bible, we're told to "prove all things" and "taste and see that the Lord is good." And there are some obvious lines of investigation. Fulfilled prophecies are a good starting point. They allow us to rule out all the other pretenders.I can't distinguish if you're still referring to a God-based 'abiogenesis' here. I'll just mention that the greater bulk of even fairly recent history cannot be investigated with science alone. Science can at best only supplement other methods when investigating history - it can't replace them. Science has gaps when it comes to understanding many things. Use the right tool for the right job, and you'll get the best results.I don't think they'd all admit it, but atheists all use the same toolset as everyone else for establishing truth. They have no choice in many circumstances. But when they do have even an illusory choice they tend to discount other tools in favor of 'science'. I've noticed a trend among them to really resent history.It is good to keep an open mind, and it's always good to search out the truth. A person who can put aside their own wishes and accept unwelcome facts is open-minded, IMO. I wouldn't recommend any experiments until you're really sure you know what your doing. Vision is a precious gift.You might want to look into optics a bit. I'm pretty sure the way the cones operate would not allow them to see extra frequencies.Vision and hearing aren't analogous because the receptors in the eye don't vibrate. I really can't help you much with this. This is a most important thing to keep in mind. Just because something isn't observed does not mean it does not exist. But there's a flip side: when something isn't observed, and you know very well that it should be observable; the tentative conclusion must be that it does not exist. I'm sure you can think of your own examples for both sides of this coin. You've got a good grip on the term 'fact'. Don't let go of it just to suit someone else or to deceive yourself about reality. You only harm yourself, and you really don't need friends who would teach you such habits.I bid you peace, and a fruitful search.