[__ Science __ ] Noahs Flood explained and Evolution refuted.

[Barbarian]

You've been telling me you are using your words, "definition" and "define", in a merely cognitively meaningless way --

I get is. This is the same reason Bill Clinton wanted to shift things to a discussion of what "is" is. You're not ready to deal with the question. When you figure out what you think the definition of a human is, we can talk. Or you can do word games.

Let me know when you're ready.

Edit:
If anyone else thinks they have a testable definition of "human", we can use that to see how meaningful his thoughts are. In science, a human is "member of the genus Homo." But the currently living subspecies of H. sapiens are informally known as "anatomically modern humans." Or more formally, H. sapiens sapiens.

The reason Paul is dancing around my questions, is that most YE creationists think neanderthals (and usually Denisovans) are also fully human. But this leads to some embarrassing issues with archaic H. sapiens, which are virtually indistinguishable from later H. erectus.

Rock and a hard place.

 

[Barbarian]

For my part, since I know that to define is to state something about something, I know that to tautologize is to define.

Well, let's take a look...

define /dĭ-fīn′/

intransitive verb​

1. To state the precise meaning of (a word or sense of a word, for example).
2. To describe the nature or basic qualities of; explain.
   "define the properties of a new drug; a study that defines people according to their median incomes."
3. To make clear the outline or form of; delineate.
   "gentle hills that were defined against the sky."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition

tautology /tô-tŏl′ə-jē/

noun​

1. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
2. An instance of such repetition.
3. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.

ibid

Words mean things. If you don't use them as they are commonly used, you'll fail at any kind of communication.

 

[Uncle J]

Well, let's take a look...

define /dĭ-fīn′/

intransitive verb​

1. To state the precise meaning of (a word or sense of a word, for example).
2. To describe the nature or basic qualities of; explain.
   "define the properties of a new drug; a study that defines people according to their median incomes."
3. To make clear the outline or form of; delineate.
   "gentle hills that were defined against the sky."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition

tautology /tô-tŏl′ə-jē/

noun​

1. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
2. An instance of such repetition.
3. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.

ibid

Words mean things. If you don't use them as they are commonly used, you'll fail at any kind of communication.

I gotta say this is a first for me. In the 20-some years of debating creationists, this is the first time I've ever seen one sink to arguing about the definition of "define".

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Let me know when you're ready.

I'm ready for you to answer the questions I've been asking you about your habitual, cognitively-meaningless, Darwinistspeak use of your words "define" and "definition". Why do you continue stonewalling against them? Why are you so proud of your inability and failure to answer them? Like your denial of the truth that whatever is not a human is not a human, also your inability and failure to answer those questions is surely nothing of which you could reasonably be proud, right?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I gotta say this is a first for me. In the 20-some years of debating creationists, this is the first time I've ever seen one sink to arguing about the definition of "define".

Barbarian's inability and failure to answer the questions I've been asking him about his cognitively-meaningless use of his word, "define" is, sadly, far from the first time I've seen Darwinists failing to answer, or even try to respond rationally to such questions.

How about you? If you say to someone, "Please define XYZ," would you be requesting them to state some proposition about XYZ? Yes or No?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Well, let's take a look...

define /dĭ-fīn′/

intransitive verb​

1. To state the precise meaning of (a word or sense of a word, for example).
2. To describe the nature or basic qualities of; explain.
   "define the properties of a new drug; a study that defines people according to their median incomes."
3. To make clear the outline or form of; delineate.
   "gentle hills that were defined against the sky."

So, let's see how your penchant for dictionary parroting serves you. Has the entry you copy/pasted there, without even the least bit of a comment as to what was your "point" in so doing, furnished you with an ability to answer the question you've been stonewalling about your habitual, cognitively-meaningless use of your word, "define":

I mean, to define XYZ is to state some proposition about XYZ, is it not? At the very least, defining is stating some proposition, no?

Is to define XYZ to state some proposition about XYZ? Yes or No?​

Have fun continuing in your inability and failure to answer that question.

Words mean things. If you don't use them as they are commonly used, you'll fail at any kind of communication.

When you say "Words mean things," to which words are you referring? Commonly used by whom?

Since, as you've demonstrated, you commonly use your word, "define" (among others), in a cognitively meaningless way, it seems you've just told me that to not use words in a cognitively meaningless way would result in failing at communication. I think you're in error about that; I mean, how, exactly, has your habitual, cognitively meaningless use of your words (such as "define") ever benefited you?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

tautology /tô-tŏl′ə-jē/

noun​

1. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
2. An instance of such repetition.
3. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.

What's your "point"? Just proving you've still "got it" when it comes to pointlessly, meaninglessly copy/pasting irrelevant snippets of text while providing not so much as a shred of commentary as to why you are doing so? Nice work!

Is the true proposition, 'Whatever is not a human is not a human,' a tautology? Yes or No?

 

[Barbarian]

What's your "point"?

Point is, there's difference between definitions and tautologies. And there's a reason you can't answer the question:

"If anyone else thinks they have a testable definition of "human", we can use that to see how meaningful his thoughts are. In science, a human is "member of the genus Homo." But the currently living subspecies of H. sapiens are informally known as "anatomically modern humans." Or more formally, H. sapiens sapiens.

The reason Paul is dancing around my questions, is that most YE creationists think neanderthals (and usually Denisovans) are also fully human. But this leads to some embarrassing issues with archaic H. sapiens, which are virtually indistinguishable from later H. erectus." Rock and a hard place.

And this is why you can't offer a testable definition of "human." Creationism depends on avoiding such a clarification entirely.

 

[Barbarian]

Is to define XYZ to state some proposition about XYZ? Yes or No?

Well, let's test your claim...

"Oranges are always striped blue and green." is a proposition. Does it define oranges?

But the reason you aren't going to define "human" is more than a confusion about logic. It's because you've realized that defining the term would invalidate the idea that humans did not evolve from other hominids. No matter where you draw the line, it's a loser for creationism.

Here's why any definition is big trouble for creationists:

Trait	Homo erectus	Archaic Homo sapiens	Anatomically Modern Homo sapiens
Average Brain Size	900 cc	1,200 cc (1,500 cc when including Neanderthals)	1,400 cc
Skull Shape	Long and low Angular	Intermediate	Short and high Globular
Forehead	Absent	Emerging	Present
Nasal Region	Projecting nasal bones (bridge of the nose), no midfacial prognathism	Wider nasal aperture and midfacial prognathism	Narrower nasal aperture, no midfacial prognathism
Chin	Absent	Absent	Present
Other Facial Features	Large brow ridge and large projecting face	Intermediate	Small brow ridge and retracted face
Other Skull Features	Nuchal torus, sagittal keel, thick cranial bone	Projecting occipital bone, often called occipital bun in Neanderthals; intermediate thickness of cranial bone	Small bump on rear of skull, if anything; thin cranial bone
Dentition	Large teeth, especially front teeth	Slightly smaller teeth; front teeth still large; retromolar gap in Neanderthals	Smaller teeth
Postcranial Features	Robust bones of skeleton	Robust bones of skeleton	More gracile bones of skeleton

11.3: Defining Characteristics of Archaic Homo Sapiens

socialsci.libretexts.org

 

[Uncle J]

Barbarian's inability and failure to answer the questions I've been asking him about his cognitively-meaningless use of his word, "define" is, sadly, far from the first time I've seen Darwinists failing to answer, or even try to respond rationally to such questions.

How about you? If you say to someone, "Please define XYZ," would you be requesting them to state some proposition about XYZ? Yes or No?

Nah, after looking through the latest posts in this thread I've no interest in participating in it.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

If you say to someone, "Please define XYZ," would you be requesting them to state some proposition about XYZ? Yes or No?

Nah

Is that a No?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Point is, there's difference between definitions and tautologies.

Which ones?

Is the tautology that four-sided squares are four-sided different from the definition that four-sided squares are four-sided? Yes or No?

 

[Uncle J]

Is that a No?

It means exactly what I said....I've no interest in participating in this debate/discussion.

 

[Barbarian]

Point is, there's difference between definitions and tautologies.

Which ones?

Such as your tautology "humans are not non-humans" and a definition of human.

But the reason you aren't going to define "human" is more than a confusion about logic. It's because you've realized that defining the term would invalidate the idea that humans did not evolve from other hominids. No matter where you draw the line, it's a loser for creationism. See the chart above. This is why you aren't about to define what a human is.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

You said:

there's difference between definitions and tautologies.

So, I asked you:

Is the tautology that four-sided squares are four-sided different from the definition that four-sided squares are four-sided? Yes or No?

You: <NO ANSWER>



I guess you don't want to try to stand by your claim that all definitions are different from tautologies, now that you have been presented with another definition/tautology: 'Four-sided squares are four-sided.'

 

[Paul E. Michael]

"Oranges are always striped blue and green." is a proposition. Does it define oranges?

Since to define oranges is to state a proposition about oranges, by "Does it define oranges?" are you asking if the proposition, 'Oranges are always striped blue and green,' states a proposition about oranges?

Propositions don't state propositions (only persons state propositions), so the proposition, 'Oranges are always striped blue and green,' does not state a proposition, and thus, does not define oranges.

But, you raise an interesting question: Since to define XYZ is to state a proposition about XYZ, is to define XYZ ever to state a proposition about XYZ that is false?

 

[Barbarian]

Since to define oranges is to state a proposition about oranges,

See the definitions. Since those are how they are used in English, we'll use those. When you're ready to give us a testable definition of "human" we can then proceed. Up to you.

 

[Barbarian]

Paul E. Michael said:

Is the tautology that four-sided squares are four-sided different from the definition that four-sided squares are four-sided?

See the dictionary definitions. Use those. When you're ready to provide a testable definition of "human" we can go on. Up to you.

The reason you aren't going to define "human" is more than a confusion about logic. It's because you've realized that defining the term would invalidate the idea that humans did not evolve from other hominids. No matter where you draw the line, it's a loser for creationism. See the chart above. This is why you aren't about to define what a human is.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

But the reason you aren't going to define "human" is more than a confusion about logic. It's because you've realized that defining the term would

So, now you're trying to change the subject from defining a human to defining the word, "human", I see. Well, to define the word, "human", we could state that the word, "human", is a five-letter word of two syllables, no?

Is the word, "human", a human? Yes or No?

Is a human the word, "human"? Yes or No?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Said Barbarian:

there's difference between definitions and tautologies.

So, I asked him:

Is the tautology that four-sided squares are four-sided different from the definition that four-sided squares are four-sided? Yes or No?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER, STILL>

Barbarian's trapped himself in another dilemma, here. Even he knows how insanely stupid it would be to answer Yes, thereby claiming that the tautology that four-sided squares are four-sided is different from the definition that four-sided squares are four-sided; yet, were he to answer No, he would be contradicting his claim that all definitions are different from tautologies.

So, Barbarian again chooses to stonewall against the very easy Yes/No question he was asked, and futilely hopes that he can hide his inability and failure to respond rationally to it by once again pointlessly displaying his dictionary-parroting skills.