• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creationism and Evolution. Conflict or reconciliation.

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I have no idea what slippery slope you are referring to. I simply gave the facts about what the word means in English. A dictionary is a perfectly authoritative source for what words mean. My objection to you is that you are trying to redefine the word, and you simply don't have the authority to do that.
Just to clarify, popular dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They report the current popular -- as opposed to 'proper' -- usage of words.
Many of the discussions here on RF are of a technical nature and, as such, would benefit from the specific, agreed-upon definitions of technicians or practitioners involved in the fields under discussion. These "technical" terms used often differ from their meanings in common parlance.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Evolution could never prove the non-existence of God.
I don't know of any time where scientists have tried to prove that God doesn't exist. Such a queston about the supernatural simply isn't the purview of Science, which is designed to explore the natural world.
Even hard atheists like Richard Dawkins affirms that being such a strong evangelist.
This is an incomplete sentence. Richard Dawkins affirms that WHO being such a strong evangellist means WHAT?

Did you mean to say,
Even hard atheists like Richard Dawkins affirms that[, him] being such a strong evangelist.
Notice how by adding a comma, and the word "him" helps make sense of it?
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Yes, the current popular meanings of words.
Common use is exactly where definitions come from, and are why language evolves and dictionaries have to update often. Regardless, if I want to know the current definition of a word, I go to a dictionary. I don't make up my own private meaning.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Yes, the current popular meanings of words.
Certainly. Common usage is what dictionaries record. And this is exactly why languages evolve, and why dictionaries are constantly updating.

Regardless, if I want to know today's meaning of a word, I go to the dictionary. I don't just make up my own private meaning. I can't say that the word giraffe refers to a winged animal.
 

McBell

Unbound
I understand the confusion. It was due to my lack of clarity. Yes, the dictionary is a book, but not the sort of topical prose that I was referring to. The book he linked us to was not a good source for the definition of creationism.
I assumed you missed my post #276 simply because I have not seen you completely ignore posts like that.

I am also not accustomed to seeing you make such a blunder.
 

McBell

Unbound
The debate is whether a given non-dictoranry book is the same for defintions of words as a dictonary. You would have a point if all books are dictonaries, but they are not.
the claim was that no book is authoritive, then said a book is authoritive.

So your special pleading still does not alter the facts.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
the claim was that no book is authoritive, then said a book is authoritive.

So your special pleading still does not alter the facts.

Well, in general dictonaries are authoritative as per cultural custom for defintions of words. But yes, they are not objectivelty authoritative. So again you win for the sake of winning.
 

McBell

Unbound
Well, in general dictonaries are authoritative as per cultural custom for defintions of words. But yes, they are not objectivelty authoritative. So again you win for the sake of winning.
Your obsession with "winning" is a you issue that not everyone else has.
You should probably get that looked at.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Your obsession with "winning" is a you issue that not everyone else has.
You should probably get that looked at.

Well, you are right. So you win again. I have an issue with that, but you are so normal, that you are special in effect. ;):D
So you get the next post and you can choose to go for the win or not.
 
Top