quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"--What your missing, is the willingness to consider a YEC reality, not of ignerance, or biased assertions.
I suppose what you really mean is
"--What your missing, is the willingness to consider a YEC POSSIBILITY,..."
Anyone with an open mind would be obliged to consider a possibility -IF- (and this is a MASSIVE -IF-) IF there were supporting evidence for this possibility. Of course this is from a naturalistic, mainstream scientific perspective - NOT a theological view.
One should require no evidence for faith-based beliefs and spiritual matters. But the topic here is focused upon "what can science verify?"
and "what can be presented -AS science- to a public school science class".
Conversely, I think what YOU are missing is a willingness to consider the reality of Santa Claus, without the jaded bias associated with growing up into an adult.
Now, have you any compelling reason to consider " the reality of Santa Claus " in my example ?
[b] [QUOTE]
My standpoint on Evolution is that it is possible, but not a plausible enough explination, my explination on the other hand, seems much more feasibly correct.
[/b][/QUOTE]
It seems plausibility is rather subjective.
By what standards do you quantify plausibility ?
How is accepting the existence of unknown, undetectable supernatural mechanisms more plausible than seeking insight into tangible, natural mechanisms to explain naturally occurring phenomena ?
What is the explanitory power of unknown, undetected supernatural mechanisms ?
What do they explain, exactly ?
How do unknown, undetectable supernatural mechanisms, seem more feasibly correct than natural mechanisms ?
Kind Regards,
Jeff
™ Version 4.2