Firstly, please understand I was only using you as an example - not picking on you particularly.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I don't waist my time on "plausibility" and "possibility", I use my time on having an inquiry on exactly what observing our universe has to hold about its given history. The people on this board can well see that virtually anything is 'possible', whether it is ', 'plausible', or 'feasible', is the question that is at the crux of earth history.
I'm not so sure. Here's a pair of wee quotes from you:
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.
... however, if you can show that this can actually happen in plausable conditions ... assume that it takes a flood for this decent to happen, this shows that these conditions are needed for this to happen in a given period of time.
My objection to this approach is that much of the philosophy of science is concerned with exactly these issues - how does one determine the best hypotheses, and which method of inference is best suited to the hypotheses being considered.
My impression is that you spend a lot of time researching the observations and experimental results secondhand, often in impressive detail, but relatively little time considering
how they support a particular position - for example, what inductive methods are appropriate to the nature of the evidence?
It's a common enough problem. After all, we naturally assume we have a basic grasp of the methods of reasoning - are we not all reasonable people?
[b] [QUOTE]"It's even sadder that they are being encourage into inadequate doctrinaire science by inadequate doctrinaire theology. "
--Good or bad, I must be the first of my kind.[/b][/QUOTE]
I don't understand. Can you elaborate? Thanks TC.