Interesting....

[Bushido216]

It even had a dragon, although they were giant lizards like today’s carnivorous Komodo dragons rather than the treasure-hoarding Smaug described by novelist J.R.R. Tolkien in his “Lord of the Rings” trilogy.

Apostasy! Rage! Hellfire! Brimstone! Smaug the Greatest of Calamities, is clearly described in Tolkien's first inspired work, The Hobbit: Or There And Back Again! What travesty! what malignation of Tolkien is this?!

 

[Gold Dragon]

Hold on. What is the difference? Accepting that there is diversity in the field of evolution still is reduced to the claim that "evolution is the ONLY plausible explanation for origins".

By using the words "ONLY plausible" you are implying a false sense of dogmaticism that is simply not true in honest scientific inquiry. Are there scientists who are dogmatic about a specific theory of evolution? Of course. Is that an honest scientific and common view of evolution? No.

Like all scientific inquiry and theories, evolution and the study of origins must be open to reinterpretation by new evidence. This is one of the essentials of the scientific method. So if new evidence were to arrive that could produce a theory that adequately explained all the currently available evidence without the use of genetic shifting or natural selection, it would be embraced by scientists.

This has not been the case and YEC "evidence" and theories obviously do not qualify since they are not based on all of currently available evidence independent of what theories they support, but instead are based on selected evidence that supports certain interpretations of non-scientific biblical evidence.

 

[statrei]

By using the words "ONLY plausible" you are implying a false sense of dogmaticism that is simply not true in honest scientific inquiry. Are there scientists who are dogmatic about a specific theory of evolution? Of course. Is that an honest scientific and common view of evolution? No.

If you act like ONLY no one is fooled because you don't use the word ONLY. To say only that there is diversity in evolution is to say that only evolution is plausible. It would be different if you said there is diversity in theories. I am simply pointing out that your language was a bit, shall we say, loose!?

Interestingly, it is easier to explain how evolution could have arisen as a competing explanation to a Creation model (I am neither of those you have been describing) than to explain how a belief in creation could have been developed if evolution were true. Take a stab at it. We already know that evolution CAN be used to explain reality so a repeat is not needed.

 

[Gold Dragon]

If you act like ONLY no one is fooled because you don't use the word ONLY. To say only that there is diversity in evolution is to say that only evolution is plausible. It would be different if you said there is diversity in theories. I am simply pointing out that your language was a bit, shall we say, loose!?

As I stated in my previous post, plausibily also extends to theories outside of evolution (genetic shifting and natural selection) if they are based on the entire body of scientific evidence available to scientists.

YEC theories are not scientifically plausible because they are only based on a selected body of evidence and include an entire body of non-scientific evidence known as the Bible. Recognize that non-scientific does not equate to non-truth. There is much truth to be gained outside of science.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Interestingly, it is easier to explain how evolution could have arisen as a competing explanation to a Creation model (I am neither of those you have been describing) than to explain how a belief in creation could have been developed if evolution were true. Take a stab at it. We already know that evolution CAN be used to explain reality so a repeat is not needed.

Before Darwin, there were no well constructed, purely scientific models of origins, only cosmologically (dependent on ones theological view of origins) based ones.

So in my view evolution was not a competing model of Creation but one which filled a void in the rapidly developing scientific worldview of the time. Since Darwin's time, the basics of the evolutionary model has remarkably stood the test of time while constantly adjusting and being explained in more detail with the new evidence being revealed by geologists, geneticists and every other field of science.

 

[statrei]

Before Darwin, there were no well constructed, purely scientific models of origins, only cosmologically (dependent on ones theological view of origins) based ones.

So in my view evolution was not a competing model of Creation but one which filled a void in the rapidly developing scientific worldview of the time. Since Darwin's time, the basics of the evolutionary model has remarkably stood the test of time while constantly adjusting and explained in more detail with the new evidence being revealed by geologists, geneticists and every other field of science.

I don't need to inform you that evolution is not really a theory of origins. Only abiogenesis is a theory of origins. Evolution is a theory of development, if the truth be told. In that context, what you say could maintain a ring of truth.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I don't need to inform you that evolution is not really a theory of origins. Only abiogenesis is a theory of origins. Evolution is a theory of development, if the truth be told.

Obviously evolution is far from a complete theory of origins and current views of abiogenesis are weak attempts to fill one of those gaps. But I would agree that it is primarily a theory about the development of life and also say that it would be valid to call that a theory of origins.

In that context, what you say could maintain a ring of truth.

Come on, that is all you are going to give me? A "ring" of truth?

 

[statrei]

Come on, that is all you are going to give me? A "ring" of truth?

Don't complain. I was tempted to announce that the bell was cracked.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Don't complain. I was tempted to announce that the bell was cracked.

lol

It has been a pleasure statrei, and don't get too many rays down in Dominica while we freeze our butts off here in Toronto.

 

[TwinCrier]

lol

It has been a pleasure statrei, and don't get too many rays down in Dominica while we freeze our butts off here in Toronto.

Adapt to your enviroment!!!

 

[Gold Dragon]

Adapt to your enviroment!!!

Unfortunately, evolution takes a little too long. And having Chinese genes, lots of body hair was not an advantageous attribute.

 

[statrei]

lol

It has been a pleasure statrei, and don't get too many rays down in Dominica while we freeze our butts off here in Toronto.

Same here. Actually, I'm not too far from you. I live in Indiana now. It's getting colder already.

 

[artybloke]

Hold on. What is the difference? Accepting that there is diversity in the field of evolution still is reduced to the claim that "evolution is the ONLY plausible explanation for origins".

Not really it doesn't. At the moment, evolution is the only plausible explanation, because it is the only one that explains all the evidence we have at present.

Tomorrow, however, someone might come up with evidence that doesn't fit the theory and can't fit the theory, for whatever reason. In that case, a new theory will be needed.

Whatever that theory is will become the new "only plausibe" theory, and may well have a new name. By that time, I predict, all fundamentalists will have accepted the theory of evolution as obvious, adjusted their "literal" interpretation of scripture accordingly, and will probably object to the new theory because anything that isn't evolutionary is unbiblical!

 

[statrei]

Not really it doesn't. At the moment, evolution is the only plausible explanation, because it is the only one that explains all the evidence we have at present.

Since you insist on discussing something different from what I raised, here is my direct request.

Without reference to what other people have stated and believe please tell me why you definitely believe that the idea that a Supreme Being created the Universe in its diversity does not fit the available data. Any reference to the theory of evolution should, obviously, only occur in the very final sentence of your submission.

 

[artybloke]

Without reference to what other people have stated and believe please tell me why you definitely believe that the idea that a Supreme Being created the Universe in its diversity does not fit the available data.

Please note the faith icon. Evolution does not equal atheism.

 

[artybloke]

Adapt to your enviroment!!!

By, for instance, buying a coat?

 

[statrei]

Please note the faith icon. Evolution does not equal atheism.

Nor does pointing that out answer the question. I wish you would answer the question.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Without reference to what other people have stated and believe please tell me why you definitely believe that the idea that a Supreme Being created the Universe in its diversity does not fit the available data.

Can't speak for arty but I believe that a Supreme Being created the Universe in its diversity via evolution and that does fit all the available data.

 

[statrei]

Can't speak for arty but I believe that a Supreme Being created the Universe in its diversity via evolution and that does fit all the available data.

Of course, that was not the request. Maybe we are admitting that it cannot be done, which says tons.

 

[Micaiah]

the main thing it shows to me is that we TE's view evolution as a theory, and thus, still an open book, we don't presume to know all the hows and all the whens, but we recognize that the more we discover about the earth from the earth, the closer we get to to real history

This is an interesting comment. Some TE's on this forum claim to accept God's word as the inspired truth. Some may even agree that Scripture plainly teaches a 6 day creation, yet claim it must be intended as myth because it contradicts natural revelation. They accept that natural revelation, or to be more precise, the popular theories of contemporary scientists, has equal authority as Scripture. In practice, Scripture becomes subordinate to scientific theory.

And yet TE's openly acknowledge that scientific theories such as evolution are not perfect, and are constantly being refined. The folly of claiming that God's inspired word is absolute truth, and then making it subordinate to man's scientific theories should be self evident.