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: 1.81 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline 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. OldEnglishSheepdog already gave a good summary of evolution. Clearly though we all have biases. We all have world views that shape our objectivity. Wouldn't you agree? Still waiting on a response to Jerry. Care to comment or respond? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted September 4, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted September 4, 2014 So there we go. You seem to be saying (as you have in the past) that a theory which primarily deals with past events does not pass muster. Yes, that's Right....it's not science, by definition. Any Hypothesis'-----which then leads to Theories, that can not be TESTED via Experiment because it's in the Unobservable Past or any other reason are "Just So" Stories. Empirical: Observable, Measurable, Repeatable, Falsifiable....is the Bedrock Foundation of Actual Science. Can you tell us "specifically" how to satisfy this criteria in relation to a past event without a Time Machine? I think this one has been beaten to death in some other threads with references to forensic science. I'm not interested in resurrecting it. I have to say (as a believer in creation as well) that this distinction between "operational" and "historic" science seems to be a product of creationist thinking. Just do a general google search for historical science and you'll see what I mean. Define Specifically "Creationist Thinking"....then can you connect it coherently to your assertion? It is an MO on a certain position of the spectrum of creationism which can be evidenced by the style of arguments posted on several popular websites and in literature. It is quite exclusionary and disses those with more "moderate" views similar to what militant evolutionists do to those who question the status quo. For an interesting experience in this type of deliberation, see the Evolutionary Fairy Tales website: evolutionfairytale.com/forum/ I do not mean that all creationists are like this-- hey I believe in creation as well. The distinction is based on Definition, Common Sense, and Junior High School General Science. Once you get past the Equivocation (Fallacy), it's readily apparent. So Google has the answers, eh? lol No equivocation here that I'm aware of. Google coupled with a discerning mind comes up with many things-- often things we don't want to deal with. "The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics) What do you suppose Dr. Feynman would say to "theories" that are untestable?? As noted above. I have no idea what the good doctor would say, but I would venture a guess. That depends on a great extent, to whom you ask the question. That's why in "science" we have definitions and strict protocols/standards to eliminate Subjective Opinions. This should be the first clue that you're well off the "Science Reservation" and into Politics/Cake Decorating/ favorite sports team et al Genre's. Let's ask Professor Gerald Kerkut PhD Zoologist, Physiologist, Biochemist (evolutionist).... ‘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. This quote was made shortly after the identification of DNA as well as the Miller Urey experiment and in no way reflects what is accepted today. Oddly enough, I found this selfsame quote in the dialog of Creation Ministries International along with some rebuttals by other thinkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted September 5, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted September 5, 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. =================================================================================== Sorry, not going to allow you to derail another thread. Non-Sequitur (Fallacy)----your conclusion not only doesn't follow from it's premises, it has no premises. Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy) As I said, you are reduced to these types of games because the "toe" is utterly bankrupt. I feel I've gotten some good answers. Yes, The Subjective Objective ones. I'm sure we will joust on some other thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted September 5, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted September 5, 2014 ======================================================================================= I think this one has been beaten to death in some other threads with references to forensic science. I'm not interested in resurrecting it. And it still stands...and always will. Evolutionary Fairy Tales website: evolutionfairytale.com/forum/ I'm a member, same handle. It is quite exclusionary and disses those with more "moderate" views For instance? Also, and this is quite troubling: Views/Opinions/Favorite Sports Teams/Favorite Colors et al are irrelevant to "Science" matters. Your postulates are either supported via the Scientific Method or they're not....End of Story. No equivocation here that I'm aware of. Google coupled with a discerning mind comes up with many things-- often things we don't want to deal with. Equivocation Fallacy is exactly what it is. You're Equivocating Historical and Operational/Experimental Science because they each have "Science" in their name. The tenets of each are so polar opposite it's laughable; as I have demonstrated Repeatedly with Illustration and Citation. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics) What do you suppose Dr. Feynman would say to "theories" that are untestable?? As noted above. I have no idea what the good doctor would say, but I would venture a guess. Go ahead and guess....? This quote was made shortly after the identification of DNA as well as the Miller Urey experiment and in no way reflects what is accepted today. Relevance? Why...cause you said so? Support? Yea, you bet what is accepted today...they want to get as far from abiogenesis as possible because the figured out how laughable it was and been two-stepping ever since. No problem, I'm here to remind them... and You. DNA was/is the Death Knell for this little charade lol. Miller Urey was an utter failure for evolutionists and an "I told you so" for Creationists. Oddly enough, I found this selfsame quote in the dialog of Creation Ministries International along with some rebuttals by other thinkers. Who cares where you found it...what's the Relevance? I gave you the Cited "Primary" Reference, I'm sure you can find it many places. This is tantamount to worrying about where the Grizzly Bear came from while you're getting disemboweled. Rebuttals by other thinkers?? This isn't a Tensor Equation or Philosophy....it's Common Sense and Intuitive. Instead of starting the fairytale @ Chapter 50, Books start @ Chapter 1. “I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close.” Slack, G., What neo-creationists get right—an evolutionist shares lessons he’s learned from the Intelligent Design camp, The Scientist, 20 June 2008 Disingenuous-- lacking in candor; giving a false appearance of simple frankness. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disingenuous Synonyms.....insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious; hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted September 5, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted September 5, 2014 As an aside here, why always the diatribes when someone differs with you on fine points? I mean just because I do not buy into all the ID ideas, for example, does not mean I do not accept belief in a Creator. You must perceive a credible threat. Is that threat to Truth as you believe it? Or is it something different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted September 5, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted September 5, 2014 As an aside here, why always the diatribes when someone differs with you on fine points? I mean just because I do not buy into all the ID ideas, for example, does not mean I do not accept belief in a Creator. You must perceive a credible threat. Is that threat to Truth as you believe it? Or is it something different? ========================================================================================== You're still not getting it. We're talking "Science"...... it's Objective. All of your "differ" or Agree/Disagree et al is for Politics, Cake Decorating, Book of the Month Club....it's quite the Non-Sequitur (Fallacy) here. As I have mentioned countless times, your postulates are either supported via the Scientific Method or they're not.....End of Story. Many people on this forum have a problem discerning the difference outlined above, they think it's an Op-Ed forum.....I'm actually quite dumbfounded, and it speaks volumes (if you know what I mean). I have no problem with someone that has well thought out point that they can Support either Logically and/or "Scientific Evidence" or The Ultimate.....The WORD of GOD. If you come a half-steppin with your op-ed and/or pseudo science and feebly attempt to cast a negative light on The WORD------ then gird up your loins, your position will be compromised in less than a Planck Time....as is well illustrated on many a topic here. Is this clear or do I need to expand further? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted September 5, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Lol there you go again. Non sequitur. I made no inference, I was just trying to see things from your point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted September 5, 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 5, 2014 To try to get the thread back on topic...Can some creationist here give me their portrayal of what mainstream science says about evolution without creationist commentary? thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted September 5, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted September 5, 2014 To try to get the thread back on topic...Can some creationist here give me their portrayal of what mainstream science says about evolution without creationist commentary? thanks ============================================================= Can some creationist here give me their portrayal of what mainstream science says Reification (Fallacy), again. "Mainstream Science" doesn't say anything....it's not alive Since you continue to use this particular Fallacy, here's how it's defined..... Reification Definition: When an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity -- when an idea is treated as if had a real existence. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/155-reification TIP: Fallacies are Fallacious Fallacious: : containing a mistake : not true or accurate. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fallacious . Synonyms: erroneous, false, untrue, wrong, incorrect, flawed, inaccurate, mistaken, misinformed, misguided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldEnglishSheepdog Posted September 5, 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 5, 2014 To try to get the thread back on topic...Can some creationist here give me their portrayal of what mainstream science says about evolution without creationist commentary? thanks Jerry, you admitted that I've already satisfied your request. Now that I've provided you with your request, could you please do me the favour of acknowledging mine? I pointed out that your request was actually loaded. You've asked us to provide an unbiased definition of evolution (which I did) but by qualifying that you just want us to admit what the science says is the unbiased definition of evolution without comment on our perception of the veracity of the theory, you've biased the request so that if when we provide the definition it's like we're admitting it has been empirically confirmed. But here's the thing, science didn't provide that definition you liked - I did... and science has disconfirmed that definition. All I'm trying to get you to acknowledge is that it was a loaded request – it’s like you've asked us to admit that science shows that women feel pain so could be please stop making excuses for beating our wives. We admit that women feel pain, but not that we beat our wives and we have to be able to make the distinction, otherwise you just win by definition. I have no problem articulating any theory with which I disagree. If you want me to articulate the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, I can do that too. I seek to accurately represent all views irrespective of whether or not I find them compelling. All I’m asking is that you extend the same courtesy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts