OldEnglishSheepdog Posted September 4, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 844 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 118 Days Won: 11 Joined: 12/23/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted September 4, 2014 Hey Jerry, it's a bit of a tall order to ask for an objective definition with no commentary when you're inputting your own commentary in your request. When you say that the evidence is in favour of evolution, or you just want us to admit what the science says, that's not objective definition but commentary which invites response. I have no problem providing objective definitions, but you're opening the discussion wider by your own commentary. where in this thread have I offered commentary? Hi Jerry, You’ll notice that I already answered that question in the post you're quoting. When you include qualifiers in your request such as “the evidence of evolution as overwhelming” and “just trying to see if anyone here is willing to give a non-biased view on what the science says” that is not objective definition but commentary that runs contrary to the assertions of creationists, thereby inviting response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted September 4, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Author Share Posted September 4, 2014 Hey Jerry, it's a bit of a tall order to ask for an objective definition with no commentary when you're inputting your own commentary in your request. When you say that the evidence is in favour of evolution, or you just want us to admit what the science says, that's not objective definition but commentary which invites response. I have no problem providing objective definitions, but you're opening the discussion wider by your own commentary. where in this thread have I offered commentary? Hi Jerry, You’ll notice that I already answered that question in the post you're quoting. When you include qualifiers in your request such as “the evidence of evolution as overwhelming” and “just trying to see if anyone here is willing to give a non-biased view on what the science says” that is not objective definition but commentary that runs contrary to the assertions of creationists, thereby inviting response. I don't see what you quoted in this thread? I've gone back over it a couple times to make sure I wasn't confused, but I did not see it. Maybe you are pulling quotes from another thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted September 4, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Author Share Posted September 4, 2014 =================================================================================== Not at all, i was looking for an objective definition with no commentary. Seems very hard to get. Really? Jerry: "I’d like to offer a forum (thread) for creationists to write about what they think biological evolution is all about." How is asking for "what they think" Objective? Especially when what they "think"------ by the inherent nature of what somebody "thinks".... is the Textbook definition of Subjective and the Antithesis of Objective. This is Tantamount to asking for a cup of Water without H2O . Probably why it "seems" hard to get. Here's the "Objective" definition (for the 10th time now)... ‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’ Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960. Still awaiting any semblance of a response.... DNA/RNA/"Functional Proteins" NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from nucleotides and aminos, respectively. It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE. That's just the Hardware! DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design(Intelligence)--------------------Designer! To refute: 1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR.... 2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence. Sorry, not going to allow you to derail another thread. I feel I've gotten some good answers. I'm sure we will joust on some other thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldEnglishSheepdog Posted September 4, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 844 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 118 Days Won: 11 Joined: 12/23/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted September 4, 2014 Nope, it was this thread I’d like to offer a forum (thread) for creationists to write about what they think biological evolution is all about. If possible, I’d ask that there be no commentary on what they think the veracity of the theory is, but only what they think that scientists espouse – your disagreement with the theory will be understood. As an olive branch, I as one who views the evidence of evolution as overwhelming, will offer up an objective view on creation… I don't need a primer, just trying to see if anyone here is willing to give a non-biased view on what the science says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted September 4, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Author Share Posted September 4, 2014 Nope, it was this thread I’d like to offer a forum (thread) for creationists to write about what they think biological evolution is all about. If possible, I’d ask that there be no commentary on what they think the veracity of the theory is, but only what they think that scientists espouse – your disagreement with the theory will be understood. As an olive branch, I as one who views the evidence of evolution as overwhelming, will offer up an objective view on creation… Hope you see the point...I was able to talk about the creation verses without giving any commentary. I was looking for creationists to do the same. I needed to point out where I'm coming from to highlight the objective nature of my post. I did not comment on the creation story. Now, can you all comment on evolution objectively (we'll assume you are a creationist unless you say differently)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted September 4, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.80 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted September 4, 2014 There should be a distinction as well between YEC (Young Earth Cretinism) and OEC (Old Earth Creationism). what are your views on evolution? (assuming you are in the OEC camp) Actually, I am in the YEC camp. I believe in the literal account of creation in Genesis in the Bible. Not a mixture of evolution with creationism which I believe is what those in the OEC camp believe. Regarding Evolution: My views on evolution are that it is a scientific yet unproven theory much like intelligent design or the big bang theory. Evolution is, of course, more popular in most scientific circles. Dissent from evolution is not only frowned upon but simply put attacked by many in the evolutionist camp. (See Ben Stein's No Intelligence Allowed) Evolution (including IMO even OEC) is in fact an ongoing or continuing process. Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species, was in fact subtitled, The preservation of favored races in the struggle for life. Evolution IMO could be argued provides the scientific backing necessary for the philosophies of Marxism, fascism, racism, apartheid and unchecked capitalism. Regarding Creation: Biblical authors throughout the Bible treated the Genesis account of creation as history and not allegory or mythology. Genesis is quoted throughout the Bible more than any other book. So it makes sense to question the foundation of any religion I suppose. Question to you of an altruistic form JerryR34: Where do love and philanthropy come from in a world evolving by chance mutation and natural selection? Theistic evolutionists (OEC) have an issue as well with their position. If God used the evolutionary method, then it could be argued He is the author of pain, suffering, and evil. Only an initially perfect world, created by a loving God, but ruined by the entrance of sin in the Genesis account can account for both the good and evil which we find around us. Your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldEnglishSheepdog Posted September 4, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 844 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 118 Days Won: 11 Joined: 12/23/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted September 4, 2014 Nope, it was this thread I’d like to offer a forum (thread) for creationists to write about what they think biological evolution is all about. If possible, I’d ask that there be no commentary on what they think the veracity of the theory is, but only what they think that scientists espouse – your disagreement with the theory will be understood. As an olive branch, I as one who views the evidence of evolution as overwhelming, will offer up an objective view on creation… Hope you see the point...I was able to talk about the creation verses without giving any commentary. I was looking for creationists to do the same. I needed to point out where I'm coming from to highlight the objective nature of my post. I did not comment on the creation story. Now, can you all comment on evolution objectively (we'll assume you are a creationist unless you say differently)? Yep, I saw the point. I am a creationist, but I actually already responded with a definition that you seemed to be pretty happy with - it was the one about all biological diversity being accounted for by unguided natural forces acting on a common celluar origin. Would you like me to elucidate any part of the theory further? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted September 4, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Author Share Posted September 4, 2014 Nope, it was this thread I’d like to offer a forum (thread) for creationists to write about what they think biological evolution is all about. If possible, I’d ask that there be no commentary on what they think the veracity of the theory is, but only what they think that scientists espouse – your disagreement with the theory will be understood. As an olive branch, I as one who views the evidence of evolution as overwhelming, will offer up an objective view on creation… Hope you see the point...I was able to talk about the creation verses without giving any commentary. I was looking for creationists to do the same. I needed to point out where I'm coming from to highlight the objective nature of my post. I did not comment on the creation story. Now, can you all comment on evolution objectively (we'll assume you are a creationist unless you say differently)? Yep, I saw the point. I am a creationist, but I actually already responded with a definition that you seemed to be pretty happy with - it was the one about all biological diversity being accounted for by unguided natural forces acting on a common celluar origin. Would you like me to elucidate any part of the theory further? yes it was exactly the kind of post I was looking for. I'd be glad to read any post on your understanding of evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted September 4, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.80 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted September 4, 2014 Nope, it was this thread I’d like to offer a forum (thread) for creationists to write about what they think biological evolution is all about. If possible, I’d ask that there be no commentary on what they think the veracity of the theory is, but only what they think that scientists espouse – your disagreement with the theory will be understood. As an olive branch, I as one who views the evidence of evolution as overwhelming, will offer up an objective view on creation… I don't need a primer, just trying to see if anyone here is willing to give a non-biased view on what the science says. I think everyone has biases Jerry. Isn't this OldEnglishSheepDog's point? Hey Jerry, it's a bit of a tall order to ask for an objective definition with no commentary when you're inputting your own commentary in your request. When you say that the evidence is in favour of evolution, or you just want us to admit what the science says, that's not objective definition but commentary which invites response. I have no problem providing objective definitions, but you're opening the discussion wider by your own commentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted September 4, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Author Share Posted September 4, 2014 I think everyone has biases Jerry. that is what science tries to minimize...personal bias, and I was hoping creationists could put their bias aside and objectively portray the rival theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts