What are some of the ways that evolutionists use words to confuse?
Evolution and Confusing Words
Have you noticed how many important words have at least two meanings. Often these meanings are exact opposites. Here are a few examples:
Axiom of science
Meaning #1: a principle that has been proven, by observation and experience, beyond a reasonable doubt. Examples: Second Law of Thermodynamics, Inverse Square Law of Gravity. Meaning #2: an assumption or made up story, that is, a fabrication, which is accepted on make believe pseudo-faith. The people who are in power keep telling you to accept these assumptions without questioning their validity. These assumptions are just plain foolish. Evolution is Just Story Telling. Leading the list are the false assumptions of Materialism, Uniformitarianism, Naturalism, Post-Modernism, Relativism, Rationalism, and Chaos Theory.
Meaning #1: one who knows that he or she doesn't know anything completely. Meaning #2: one who is dogmatically convinced that no one knows anything about God or the spiritual existence. This person is convinced that there is no truth that can be known, that there is no right and there is no wrong. There is a bit of irony in this belief. Dogmatic agnostics do believe that it is wrong to believe that there is right and that there is wrong. Dogmatic agnostics, while believing that it's wrong to be dogmatic about anything, are themselves dogmatic about agnosticism. Most of them will accept anything except the teachings of Jesus Christ.
In Meaning #2, they are just making stuff up! In other words, they are lying.
Meaning #1: a method of thinking that does not accept assumptions or fabrications, but rather relies on what can be observed, including the laws of sound logic that have been actually observed. Meaning #2: a method of thinking that is based on assumptions, or fabrications, and uses a form of logic that accepts assumptions and fabrications as valid. Meaning #2 is really just rational-lie-zed speculation, and is the method for believing in evolution and many other ungodly Fairy Tales
Meaning #1: a method of thinking that applies certain mathematical rules for which no observed exceptions have ever been found, sometimes called deductive logic. Meaning #2: a method of thinking that is based on presupposed and hidden assumptions and fabrications while using terms of the first method of logic to make it seem as if the first method of logic is being applied.
Meaning #1: a person who has a personal relationship with, knows, and follows the leading of Jesus Christ. This person may be mature in his or her relationship with Christ or may be a baby in Christ, or may be anywhere in between. They have been born into the family of God through faith of Jesus. Meaning #2: a person who doesn't have the faith of Jesus Christ but rather depends on his or her own self-proclaimed goodness. Meaning #3: a person who believes that Jesus Christ exists but doesn't believe that a personal relationship is possible. They may have been born again, but they are frozen into perpetual immaturity. Because they don't believe they can find a deeper relationship with Jesus, they equate spiritual growth with learning theology.
Meaning #1: a Christian who believes in the fundamental principles of the Bible such as salvation, hope, love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, self-control, and faith. Meaning #2: a person in an anti-Christian religion who believes in hate, murder, and terrorism. Meaning #3: a Christian who dogmatically believes in theology that goes well beyond the teachings of the Bible. Generally, this theology is based on certain assumptions that are added into the teachings of the Bible. That is to say, the Bible plus a type of reason that is based on assumption, presupposition, and false logic.
Meaning #1: Variations that are generated by selecting from preexisting information that is stored in the gene pool of animals and plants. We really don't know enough about the DNA computer to say whether these variations are being created by logical rules or by having all the possible combinations stored or by some method about which we don't yet know. These are the variations that can be observed, showing quite a wide range of variation, but not leading to new kinds of animals or plants. Note that kinds are not the equivalent of species. This form of evolution is easily observable. Meaning #2: Variations that are claimed to have been generated by a mysterious process that would somehow lead to positive changes in the gene pool of animals and plants. These supposed changes have never been observed and would be impossible because they would be dependent on random processes adding meaningful complexity and organization to the information previously stored in the gene pool of animals and plants. Random processes have been shown to always do the exact opposite. Evolution has a troubling information problem. Random processes always, without exception, have the net effect of leading to less complexity and organization. No natural process has ever been found that leads, over time, to more complexity or organization. Those natural processes that do affect the gene pool have been shown to have a negative effect. They cause genetic diseases. There is no instance of any exception. This kind of Evolution isn't science. Meaning #3: The claim that nothingness becomes hydrogen over time, and then hydrogen turns into people over time. This kind of Evolution isn't science.
(Read the latest science on the subject: Without Excuse by Werner Gitt, a description of the scientific Laws of Universal Information. See also: Information Theory Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. Here is another interesting article.) More is constantly being learned about information and about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evolutionists tend to hide in the weeds of the unknown with an argument from ignorance: "If you can't prove, by empirical science, that evolution is impossible, then it happened." By empirical science alone, we can only prove probabilities. The probabilities show the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story to be a bazaar hypothesis, a story that is so improbable that it should not be considered. However, empirical science is not a tool that can prove anything to be true or false absolutely. For absolute proof, we have revelation. (See Basic and Concise Guide to Practical, Useful Logic and Reasoning). God says that He created everything. He is the One Who enforces the laws of nature. He is the One Who will judge all of us in the end. We know that because we know Him presonally through the indwelling Presence of Jesus Christ and the moment-by-moment instruction of the Holy Spirit.
Meaning #1: Knowledge gained by observation and experience, sometimes called empirical science. This knowledge, though extensive, does have definite limitations. It is the kind of knowledge by which we are able to build engines, motors, complex buildings, and machinery. Meaning #2: Knowledge gained by assumption and fabrication, sometimes called theoretical science. This knowledge, though false, has no limitations. This knowledge is often referred to as rationalism, and you can rationalize anything. This rationalism is really rational-lie-zed speculation. Assumption and fabrication can go anywhere. This form of science is the basis of the geocentric solar system conjecture / fabrication, the flat earth conjecture / fabrication, and the molecules-to-man evolution conjecture / fabrication.
Meaning #1: Being inconsistent with one's own opinion. Having two or more conflicting thought processes, usually without being consciously aware of the inner conflict. This meaning of irrational is a synonym for "Post-Modern" and also for "insane." Meaning #2: (most common usage) Having a world-view that is inconsistent with the assumptions of the person who is telling you that you are irrational. If I don't accept your assumptions, I will seem, to you, to be irrational. The trouble is that neither you nor I know what all of your assumptions are, because they are mostly presupposed at a subconscious level. Most of us don't want to think that hard to try to discover what they are, and, even if we did, we would probably not be successful in discovering all of them. Meaning #3: consciously having a world-view that consists of many separated world views. Each world view is inconsistent with one or more of the assumptions of your other world views. Examples would be post modernism and chaos theory. Meaning #4: consciously holding many conflicting opinions at the same time. The opposite of integrity. News commentators have asserted that Bill Clinton was more intelligent than George Bush, basing their assertion on the observation that Bill Clinton holds many conflicting opinions at the same time, while George Bush has one integrated and consistent thought pattern. This form of irrational thinking allows people to consider themselves to be good people while they are doing awful things.
Meaning #1: one who is kind and generous, giving from one's own resources. Meaning #2: one who is envious, hedonistic, and anti-Christ. Meaning #3: one who is generous with someone else's resources. Meaning #4: combination of meaning #2 and #3.
These few words are only a sampling of the many that have been purposely distorted by those who are trying very hard to change society. The new age skills of neurolinguistic programming are brought to bear, and many are deceived. Changing the meanings of words is but one of the many techniques used. The deception is very strong.
Because the language has become confusing, it's difficult to talk about many important concepts. Many very important terms have two or more opposing meanings. The education systems throughout the world have deliberately dumbed people down to a very low level. The so-called entertainment media has joined in the effort through many techniques, teaching people the basic skills that have caused them to be unable to successfully process thoughts. They have turned out people of dogmatic ignorance. Most people have been affected to some extent. That is, they have created a society full of people who are dogmatic about what they believe, but who don't know why they believe what they believe. If you question their assumptions, they become angry and close down all communications. Interestingly, they consider themselves to be open-minded. They consider anyone who does not share in their dumbed down state to be closed-minded.
The concept of dogmatic ignorance is nothing new. The science of brainwashing the population into dogmatic ignorance, however, has never been more well developed. Our oldest written history, in the Bible, shows this conflict between knowledge and dogmatic ignorance. There are many examples of those who claimed to have a vision or a burden or a prophecy, but they did not. They claimed that God had showed them something, when God had never communicated to them. This always caused a conflict between the false prophets and the true prophets. The true prophets, with whom God did communicate, were shown to be right, but most of the true prophets were killed by those to whom they prophesied the Word of God.