fisherman wrote: My position? The only assertions I have made refer to a lack of objectivity.
First, fisherman, I wanna say I hope you're enjoying yourself here - that's the main idea, after all - "If ya ain't havin' fun, yer doin' it wrong", ya know. And that said, no need to feel you're getting beat up on - even - perhaps least of all - by me. Debate is a sorta intellectual contact sport, and while I acknowledge some folks here play pretty hard, most play by the rules and those who don't generally don't play long. In loose terms, anything posted is fair game, but stuff like spam, porn, gratuitous vulgarity, hate speech, and ad hominem attacks on any individual poster him/her/itself pretty much are right out. The idea is tear into what's been said if you wanna, but not into the member here who said it. Still, this can be a tough crowd - be ready for 'em.
Now, on to topical response to the points of your referenced post - lets see - where were we? Oh, yeah ... you said "
My position? The only assertions I have made refer to a lack of objectivity" ...
I submit that is a purely subjective assessment.
Quote:I discovered this forum by searching for an objective discussion on a particular inquiry of my own. I have attended other discussion boards most of which are attended by apologists and pundits seeking to display their own proficiencies in their chosen area. I was hoping this board would be less so and would provide for more "discussion" and less preaching.
Consider perhaps some of your disppointment is consequent to unrealistic expectation. Consider also that some of your disappointment may originate in your having found little with which intuitively, comfortably you can agree.
Quote:My hobby is learning. It matters little to me that you know my "position". If you need to categorize me then I will offer this for your prejudgement.
Misapprehension on your part perhaps? Implicationlly a straw man, at any event; while you assert the contrary, clearly you have presented and pressed one or more positions throughout our little side debate - were that not the case, there'd be no side debate. That aside, from your posts, it reasonably may be inferred you lean toward endorsing the POV of those who dispute science as pertains to evolution, at the very least, and there is fair evidence to lead one to suspect you personally endorse a religiospiritual construct derivational from the Abrahamic Mythopaeia ... Protestant Christianity, perhaps of a personal interpretation, and likely with fundamendalist/evangelical overtones, would be my first guess.
Quote:Naturalistic evolution on a macro level in my view is untenable by the evidence or the laws of nature or physics.
Your view - and perfectly entitled to it you are. In what manner and by what evidence, what "
... laws of nature or physics" (odd, that particular 5-word string - rather a redundancy, an ideosynchratic syntactical composition, a specific word useage/phrase structure which, while not exclusive to, notably is more common to Creationist/ID-iot literature than elsewhere - "Naturalistic Evolution" is another word-join-up seen more in Creationist/ID-iot literature than in legitimate scholarly works pertaining to the Earth or Life Sciences, too, but no matter)
Quote:I have studied that subject considerably in an effort to disprove my own belief in creation.
Here we have what well may be a very telling disclosure - likely not intentionally so. One thing that statement does, at the very most charitable, is to render dubious any claim you might make to objectivity. You say you "
have studied that subject considerably ... what subject? What has been the nature of your study? Under the auspices and direction of what institution? At what level? What directly relevant labwork and practicals have you done? How many directly relevant essays, term papers, and treatises have you submitted for grade? What independent reading have you done - and from where has that literature been sourced?
Quote:The gaps in the theory are not in my view minor without an underlying faith in the original premise and I have found few tenable explanations for them. Almost always what is offered is an hypothesis that requires even further allegiance and faith to the original premise.
Back to "Faith", eh? That says a bit too. However, overlooking that, what specific "
gaps in the theory" (another of those statistically distinctive word lashups - wunner why they keep popping up in your posts - oh, well) trouble you, for what reasons, by what criteria? What is this "
original premise" to which you refer - and apparently to which you object? In what manner does informed endorsement of some particular theory or subset thereof consitute "Faith"?
Quote:I have discovered that most debaters on the subject are not so much debaters as they are the faithful who are in my view no different than those who blindly follow organised religion and just as enthusiastically preach their own proficiencies in their chosen area of presupposition. I have found that little is to be learned from such on either side of the debate.
There may be something to your observation there is little to be learned from debate - certainly if you've learned nothing from it, you've learned nothing from it. I suspect, however, that if such indeed is the case - and I do not dispute it may be the case - the fault may not lie entirely with the debates and debators you've observed.
Objectively speaking, of course.
