-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
It's A Young Earth!
- Thread starter JGrubbs
- Start date
"While Genesis 1&2 do not tell us the age of earth, we are told the earth’s age relative to creation of man; 5 days older."
So was man created after the animals as in chapter 1 or before the animals as in chapter two?
Maybe it is not meant to be literal but to establish that God created both man and the animals and not to tell us how.
"How long were those days? You don't have to take the word of a blogger in Florida, you can take God's word, "And the evening and the morning were the first day" So according to God, how many days did it take Him to create everything?"
Interesting that you could have a sunrise and a sunset to give you evenings and mornings before the sun was ever created.
Maybe it is not meant to be literal but instead is meant to tell us that God created the sun and the rest of the universe.
Do you also accept the parts that talk about the dome placed over the earth? The firament that separated the waters surroung the earth from the waters above the earth. The one with windows in it to allow rain to fall through. Maybe that was not meant to be literal either but instead tells us of God's control over His creation.
Do you also accept the part where the stars are actually fixed in that dome over the earth? Maybe that is also not meant to be literal but to tell us that God made the stars but not how.
Do you accept the part where the waters and the ground themselves bring forth life? Sounds to me like it could be a passing reference to evolution.
"The Bible teaches that the flood was worldwide, again you don't have to take the blogger from Florida's word."
And we are also told that Jesus could see the whole world when he was taken up on the mountain and tempted. So either the earth is flat and we have yet to realize it, or maybe the whole world can often mean all of the world that they live in or know about. And since there is strong evidence for a great local flood in the Middle East and none for a world wide flood, then maybe we should interpret the whole world as the gospels do.
"I choose to read God's word as it is written, not interpret it through the filter of atheistic evolution!"
You most certainly do not! You really think there is a dome over the earth? You think that the sun actually quit moving instead of the earth stopping its rotation for Joshua? You really think that Jesus was on a mountain high enough to see the whole world? You really think there are windows for the rain and storehouses for the snow and hail? No! You reinterpret as you feel comfortable and condemn those who do so in areas where you do not feel comfortable.
"...he used 8 people and 2 of every kind of animal to repopulate the entire world."
This would leave a genetic bottleneck that does not exist. There would be almost no genetic diversity in any life if this were the case. We see greater diversity than this and we can actually tell what the minimum population was for a group by this diversity.
So was man created after the animals as in chapter 1 or before the animals as in chapter two?
Maybe it is not meant to be literal but to establish that God created both man and the animals and not to tell us how.
"How long were those days? You don't have to take the word of a blogger in Florida, you can take God's word, "And the evening and the morning were the first day" So according to God, how many days did it take Him to create everything?"
Interesting that you could have a sunrise and a sunset to give you evenings and mornings before the sun was ever created.
Maybe it is not meant to be literal but instead is meant to tell us that God created the sun and the rest of the universe.
Do you also accept the parts that talk about the dome placed over the earth? The firament that separated the waters surroung the earth from the waters above the earth. The one with windows in it to allow rain to fall through. Maybe that was not meant to be literal either but instead tells us of God's control over His creation.
Do you also accept the part where the stars are actually fixed in that dome over the earth? Maybe that is also not meant to be literal but to tell us that God made the stars but not how.
Do you accept the part where the waters and the ground themselves bring forth life? Sounds to me like it could be a passing reference to evolution.
"The Bible teaches that the flood was worldwide, again you don't have to take the blogger from Florida's word."
And we are also told that Jesus could see the whole world when he was taken up on the mountain and tempted. So either the earth is flat and we have yet to realize it, or maybe the whole world can often mean all of the world that they live in or know about. And since there is strong evidence for a great local flood in the Middle East and none for a world wide flood, then maybe we should interpret the whole world as the gospels do.
"I choose to read God's word as it is written, not interpret it through the filter of atheistic evolution!"
You most certainly do not! You really think there is a dome over the earth? You think that the sun actually quit moving instead of the earth stopping its rotation for Joshua? You really think that Jesus was on a mountain high enough to see the whole world? You really think there are windows for the rain and storehouses for the snow and hail? No! You reinterpret as you feel comfortable and condemn those who do so in areas where you do not feel comfortable.
"...he used 8 people and 2 of every kind of animal to repopulate the entire world."
This would leave a genetic bottleneck that does not exist. There would be almost no genetic diversity in any life if this were the case. We see greater diversity than this and we can actually tell what the minimum population was for a group by this diversity.
False dilemma. You are not the arbiter of what God has said.Originally posted by just-want-peace:
YOU CHOOSE TO TRUST GOD OR SCIENCE!
You choose to ignore all of what God has revealed in His creation. You choose instead to stick with your own fallible interpretation no matter how at odds it is with reality.
Did not really think you would be willing to defend any of your assertions. Just as well, they are indefensible.
I guess this means that you also will not be attempting to defend your assertion on the other thread that lizards are dinosaurs even though lizards have a pelvis with two points and dinosaurs have a pelvis with three. Good choice for you as that would be a hard claim for you to defend also.
As I predicted there you will neither defend your claims nor admit that your sources misrepresent the data nor change your mind on any point of discussion. You're right, it is best to boiw out when your arguments are shown to be specious.
I guess this means that you also will not be attempting to defend your assertion on the other thread that lizards are dinosaurs even though lizards have a pelvis with two points and dinosaurs have a pelvis with three. Good choice for you as that would be a hard claim for you to defend also.
As I predicted there you will neither defend your claims nor admit that your sources misrepresent the data nor change your mind on any point of discussion. You're right, it is best to boiw out when your arguments are shown to be specious.
Like I said before, your "facts" are all based on the theories and opinions of athiestic evolutionists. I don't have the knowledge, interest or time to do the research to counter your secular evolution claims, by "bowing out" I am simply admitting that this is not the forum for me, I will stick to topics that I know more about, and have studied in more detail, it doesn't change what I believe, just means that I don't feel like wasting my time with an evolutionist, especially on a Christian board, where the theory of evolution has no place to begin with!
Any theory which has truth at its core has its place on a Christian board. That is the problem with YE, there is NO truth to it.
You must know that this is the case or else you would seek to defend your assertions. As it is, you can only copy and paste from websites of dubious nature. You do not even have the knowledge to judge their veracity, yet you accept them fully.
The reptile and dinosaur "debate" is a perfect example. Your source claims that modern lizards are simply small dinosaurs. You accept this and repeat it. When pointed to specific physical differences, you continue to support your sources even though you lack the knowledge to even attempt to defend them.
Just look at the claims. Take the pelvis. A lizard has a pelvis which points in two directions. The pelvis of a dinosaur points in three. They cannot be the same thing. Yet your site claims them to be the same thing.
When confronted with this devestating evidence you neither accept that they were wrong nor even attempt to check into the facts for yourself. You have convinced yourself ahead of time of the "truth" and no facts will be allowed to get in your way. You'll gladly just ignore them.
And that is the problem. YE is a lie of the devil. It divides believers with it untruths. It convinces unbelieveres that Christians must lie and distort to support thier believes. It chases Christians from their faith when they learn the truth. It takes honest Christians and deludes them and convinces them to spread its lies.
YE is one of the greatest threats to the church today. Why do you think I am willing to devote so much time to defeat this evil? I certainly don't fit the stereotype of the guy who wants to rule out God so he can do as he wishes. YE is an evil, false doctrine that needs to be thrown off before it does any more harm.
You must know that YE has nothing to stand on or else you would defend it factually. Your inaction betrays that you know that there is no factual support for YE.
As predicted you will neither defend the claims nor admit that they are incorrect. You know that you have been caught up and deluded by liars portraying themselves as Christians leaders yet you "bow out" rather than admit as much.
Please educate yourself on this matter or at least be quiet. Everytime a Christian opens their mouths or types on their keyboards in support of the prevarication that is YE, irreparable harm is done. There is a wealth of information out there. If you must speak on it, at least read what both sides have to say and try and determine the trith of each from an unbiased point of view.
I was once YE. It was discovering the lies of YE that led me to even examine the alternatives. The alternatives are the ones with the truth.
You must know that this is the case or else you would seek to defend your assertions. As it is, you can only copy and paste from websites of dubious nature. You do not even have the knowledge to judge their veracity, yet you accept them fully.
The reptile and dinosaur "debate" is a perfect example. Your source claims that modern lizards are simply small dinosaurs. You accept this and repeat it. When pointed to specific physical differences, you continue to support your sources even though you lack the knowledge to even attempt to defend them.
Just look at the claims. Take the pelvis. A lizard has a pelvis which points in two directions. The pelvis of a dinosaur points in three. They cannot be the same thing. Yet your site claims them to be the same thing.
When confronted with this devestating evidence you neither accept that they were wrong nor even attempt to check into the facts for yourself. You have convinced yourself ahead of time of the "truth" and no facts will be allowed to get in your way. You'll gladly just ignore them.
And that is the problem. YE is a lie of the devil. It divides believers with it untruths. It convinces unbelieveres that Christians must lie and distort to support thier believes. It chases Christians from their faith when they learn the truth. It takes honest Christians and deludes them and convinces them to spread its lies.
YE is one of the greatest threats to the church today. Why do you think I am willing to devote so much time to defeat this evil? I certainly don't fit the stereotype of the guy who wants to rule out God so he can do as he wishes. YE is an evil, false doctrine that needs to be thrown off before it does any more harm.
You must know that YE has nothing to stand on or else you would defend it factually. Your inaction betrays that you know that there is no factual support for YE.
As predicted you will neither defend the claims nor admit that they are incorrect. You know that you have been caught up and deluded by liars portraying themselves as Christians leaders yet you "bow out" rather than admit as much.
Please educate yourself on this matter or at least be quiet. Everytime a Christian opens their mouths or types on their keyboards in support of the prevarication that is YE, irreparable harm is done. There is a wealth of information out there. If you must speak on it, at least read what both sides have to say and try and determine the trith of each from an unbiased point of view.
I was once YE. It was discovering the lies of YE that led me to even examine the alternatives. The alternatives are the ones with the truth.
I am sorry to see that this is such a topic for debate here. There is a lot of supposed scientific evidence for an earth that is billions of years old. Of course much of this evidence is based on discredited dating methods and unproven theories such as evolution.
While the Bible doesn't say how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden before the original sin, the timeline after that is fairly well documented. The scripture clearly states that the world and everything in it were created in 6 literal days. Since this is the case, there is no need to think that the earth is so old. It is doubtful that sin took millions of years to enter the world. That would require a very patient Satan.
I beg of the Christian's that have tried to justify scripture with supposed scientific knowledge to research all of the unknowns and unprovable theories that scientists accept as factual and build further theories on. There are a wealth of problems with many of these theories and the information to discredit them is available if you search for it.
Remember when you are talking about Origin Science, there is no basis in the observable or testable since no one was there but God and the conditions that existed are unknown and therefore impossible to duplicate. Other disciplines of science do rely on observation and testing and are therefore more accurate in what they say.
Secular humanism is as much a religion as Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddism, etc. To believe in evolution requires faith. It is just that this faith is in man and his theories not God and His word.
While the Bible doesn't say how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden before the original sin, the timeline after that is fairly well documented. The scripture clearly states that the world and everything in it were created in 6 literal days. Since this is the case, there is no need to think that the earth is so old. It is doubtful that sin took millions of years to enter the world. That would require a very patient Satan.
I beg of the Christian's that have tried to justify scripture with supposed scientific knowledge to research all of the unknowns and unprovable theories that scientists accept as factual and build further theories on. There are a wealth of problems with many of these theories and the information to discredit them is available if you search for it.
Remember when you are talking about Origin Science, there is no basis in the observable or testable since no one was there but God and the conditions that existed are unknown and therefore impossible to duplicate. Other disciplines of science do rely on observation and testing and are therefore more accurate in what they say.
Secular humanism is as much a religion as Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddism, etc. To believe in evolution requires faith. It is just that this faith is in man and his theories not God and His word.
Post away. Tell us the problems.
And while you are at it we will need a testable, predictive, falsifiable theory from you the DOES explain all the data that we observe in the earth and the universe.
But you are right on one thing. There should no longer be any need for debate. That all life on earth is related through common descent is so well supported that you can only disagree by either ignoring the data or misrepresenting it.
But take your best shot. I'll be looking for that theory of yours. Please tell us up front what you think would falsify your theory.
And while you are at it we will need a testable, predictive, falsifiable theory from you the DOES explain all the data that we observe in the earth and the universe.
But you are right on one thing. There should no longer be any need for debate. That all life on earth is related through common descent is so well supported that you can only disagree by either ignoring the data or misrepresenting it.
But take your best shot. I'll be looking for that theory of yours. Please tell us up front what you think would falsify your theory.
All life on earth had the same designer. There is nothing proven about common descent. How could there be? Man does not understand the genetic code well enough to be sure of what it means on the simplest level.
Yes, I know about the mapping of the human genome, so don't hit me with that one. Mapping doesn't mean we know how to interpret it.
Common descent is another falacy purpetrated on us by an out of control scientific community, or do we need reminding about how many things we have been told that have later been disproven?
Yes, I know about the mapping of the human genome, so don't hit me with that one. Mapping doesn't mean we know how to interpret it.
Common descent is another falacy purpetrated on us by an out of control scientific community, or do we need reminding about how many things we have been told that have later been disproven?
OK.
Now, tell us SPECIFIC problem with common descent. Specific problems with the theory.
And even though you assert that there is no evidence for common descent, there is. And you need to provide us with a testable, predictive, falsifiable theory that explains these things. Things such as:
The twin nested heirachy.
Anatomical parahomology.
Molecular parahomology.
Convergence of independant heirachies.
The know transitional series.
Anatomical vestiges.
Genetic vestiges.
Atavisms.
Suboptimal function.
The chronology of hte fossil record.
Ontogeny.
Past biogeography.
Present biogeography.
Transposons.
Pseudogenes.
Retroviral inserts.
I eagerly await your comprehensive theory on these things.
Edit to add:
And if you want to go down the fraud route, I love that tactic. You can talk about a handful of frauds from the past while I can talk about scores of frauds in current use by the so called Christian leaders of the YE movement. It makes a wonderful contrast.
Now, tell us SPECIFIC problem with common descent. Specific problems with the theory.
And even though you assert that there is no evidence for common descent, there is. And you need to provide us with a testable, predictive, falsifiable theory that explains these things. Things such as:
The twin nested heirachy.
Anatomical parahomology.
Molecular parahomology.
Convergence of independant heirachies.
The know transitional series.
Anatomical vestiges.
Genetic vestiges.
Atavisms.
Suboptimal function.
The chronology of hte fossil record.
Ontogeny.
Past biogeography.
Present biogeography.
Transposons.
Pseudogenes.
Retroviral inserts.
I eagerly await your comprehensive theory on these things.
Edit to add:
And if you want to go down the fraud route, I love that tactic. You can talk about a handful of frauds from the past while I can talk about scores of frauds in current use by the so called Christian leaders of the YE movement. It makes a wonderful contrast.
"Whoever has the least frauds must be right."
That is an interesting bit of scientific experimentation strategy--which is the basic problem with all the "prittle-prattle". There is no real science in the discussion--neither side of the debate can be proven true or false. So, the discussion should be held in Religion 101, not the laboratory. There is an "experimental religion" experiment of sorts--it is called "suicide bombing". Please put up sufficient barriers and give an appropriate warning before trying this experiment--all data indicates a 100% success rate thus far--there have been thousands of trials--not very controlled tests but effective nonetheless.
Selah,
Bro. James
That is an interesting bit of scientific experimentation strategy--which is the basic problem with all the "prittle-prattle". There is no real science in the discussion--neither side of the debate can be proven true or false. So, the discussion should be held in Religion 101, not the laboratory. There is an "experimental religion" experiment of sorts--it is called "suicide bombing". Please put up sufficient barriers and give an appropriate warning before trying this experiment--all data indicates a 100% success rate thus far--there have been thousands of trials--not very controlled tests but effective nonetheless.
Selah,
Bro. James
Not exactly.
When YEer talk of scientific frauds they invariably talk of old hoaxes that usually were not widely accepted and were proven wrong by science itself. Sometimes they are not even frauds but YE misrepresentations of the facts. You never hear of any CURRENT frauds.
On the other hand, it is quite easy to list numerous YE frauds that are still in active use. There are quite a few on this thread that if you investigate a little further you will find to be examples of YE leaders not just being wrong, but being deliberately wrong.
When YEer talk of scientific frauds they invariably talk of old hoaxes that usually were not widely accepted and were proven wrong by science itself. Sometimes they are not even frauds but YE misrepresentations of the facts. You never hear of any CURRENT frauds.
On the other hand, it is quite easy to list numerous YE frauds that are still in active use. There are quite a few on this thread that if you investigate a little further you will find to be examples of YE leaders not just being wrong, but being deliberately wrong.
Most participants in frauds and hoaxes are seldom allowed into the circle of credibility--even if they have essentially been duped. i.e. Paul the Apostle was announced by Divine message--the disciples were highly suspicious of him. He thought he was doing God service--killing Christians--before he was converted.
Selah,
Bro. James
Selah,
Bro. James
I always find it interesting that belief in what the bible explicitly says is not enough of a basis to challenge unscriptural ideas. If you want to read some of the things wrong with evolutionary theory, look at http://www.icr.org/ for some information.
I am no scientist, but I do know the scientific method and that origin science doesn't care a whit for it. They like to prove theories with more theories and no proof, yet anyone that objects is hammered for their proof. Is that backwards or what?
Oh and I did not say there was no evidence, I said it was not proven. There is a difference you know.
I am no scientist, but I do know the scientific method and that origin science doesn't care a whit for it. They like to prove theories with more theories and no proof, yet anyone that objects is hammered for their proof. Is that backwards or what?
Oh and I did not say there was no evidence, I said it was not proven. There is a difference you know.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Some of the things we have been told that have later been disproven include the idea that the earth has a dome over it that holds back the waters above; that the earth is a mere 6 to 10 thouseand years old; and that all life was created seperately, species by species, instead of as an evolutionary development over millions and millions of years.
And that is what has historically happened, only some people haven't accepted all the findings of science yet.
Nevertheless, the more we find out about creation, the more we wonder at the greatness and wisdom and power of the Creator.
And that is what has historically happened, only some people haven't accepted all the findings of science yet.
Nevertheless, the more we find out about creation, the more we wonder at the greatness and wisdom and power of the Creator.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
If you will look back at what has actually been asked of you, you will see you were not asked for proof you were asked for an alternative theory to explain the evidence.I am no scientist, but I do know the scientific method and that origin science doesn't care a whit for it. They like to prove theories with more theories and no proof, yet anyone that objects is hammered for their proof. Is that backwards or what?
Let me explain how science works. A theory is put out there. That theory will be the dominant theory and discussed as such forever, or until a better theory takes it place.
No matter how many holes somebody pokes into the theory, another paper will be published discussing that theory! Until, that is, a better theory is out there to take its place. That's how it works.
Now the theory that all species were created separately has been discarded in science, because it doesn't fit the evidence. For example, among the small flying animals, you find some with placentas and fur, and some that lay eggs and have feathers.
Why is there never a fur bearing egg laying small flying animal? It's perfectly possible to imagine such a thing, there's nothing about fur that makes eggs a handicap or vice versa.
Evolution theory is able to explain that. Separate creation is not.
OK maybe you can modify the separate creation theory to add to its scientific usefulness in such as way as to help us out here.
Consider that your challenge. Until you succeed, scientists will continue to talk about evolution theory alone, without reference to any other theories of the origin of the species.
"I always find it interesting that belief in what the bible explicitly says is not enough of a basis to challenge unscriptural ideas."
Do you accept chapter one where the animals are created and later man or do you accept chapter two where man is created and then the animals as potential helpers for man?
Do you accept the part about a fixed dome over the earth that separates the earth from the waters above it and which has windows to allow for the rain. Do you accept the part about stars being relatively nearby lights that are fixed into this dome? What about the storehouses for the hail and snow.
These are all explicitly stated, yet I doubt you take them literally.
" If you want to read some of the things wrong with evolutionary theory, look at http://www.icr.org/ for some information."
I have. When I was YE. The material was so erroneous even to me, someone who already agreed, that I was forced to examine the alternatives. Guess what? I found out that the alterantives were true. I was convinced of OE by the YE arguments.
"I am no scientist, but I do know the scientific method and that origin science doesn't care a whit for it."
Someone alse said the same thing earlier. It is not true. Here is my response.
Step 1. I have given you a partial list of observations above. So check.
Step 2. Well, we hypothesize that these observations seem to show that all life may be related. So we will go with that as a hypthesis. New life forms can develop from other life forms.
Step 3. Now the fun begins. Let's look at a few examples.
Take whales for example. They are sea dwelling mammals. During their development, they have cute little legs and feet that emerge and then are reabsorbed. Sometimes this programmed cell death does not occur and the whales are born with full on rear legs. Well, we'll predict that whales have a land dwelling ancestor and we should be able to find fossil of such. And we do. Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus and many others. Well, once we have the fossils we see that they show whales evolving from ungulates. So if we test modern ungulates we should find them closely related to whales. We test and they are. Now, if whales came from land animals, they then once had a functional sense of smell. We might be able to find the remains of the genes for this system. And guess what, whales have scores of pseudogenes of a sense of smell just like what the land animals to which it is related have.
Man has traits that makes us another ape. There should be links between us and the other apes. And there are. (For a whole thread on the genetic links see http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/19.html? ) Some of the links are genetic. We find shared pseudogenes and retroviral inserts and transposons between man and the other apes. We have a rich fosil record leading back to common ancestors.
The fossil record shows the horses and rhinos share a common ancestor. We predict that genetics should show the same link. And it does.
Darwin even predicted that there must be a means for carrying the instructions for making life. Last century we found it, DNA.
So, evolution passes the thrid step with flying colors. This third step is where we really spend all of our time in debates.
Step 4. Well here we refine our theory as we make more observations and we see how different scientists support different notions with new discoveries. Some ideas are cast off in favor of new ones, such as cladogenesis replacing orthogenesis for the most part, but such is the process. We have lab experiments where rapid evolution can be observed. Evolution meets the criteria of the fourth stage.
So we see, contrary to your assertion, that evolution does follow the scientific method. Perhaps someone has tried to deceive you. Why would anyone promoting the "truth" need to do such.</font>[/QUOTE]http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/40/2.html#000028
"Oh and I did not say there was no evidence, I said it was not proven. There is a difference you know."
And nothing in science is ever proven. You should know that. But if you wish to object to the current explanation for that evidence you must both tell us what is wrong with the current theories AND provide a a testable, falsifible, predictive theory that BETTER explains the observations. Such as the twin nested heirachy. Anatomical parahomology.
Molecular parahomology. Convergence of independant heirachies. The know transitional series.
Anatomical vestiges. Genetic vestiges. Atavisms. Suboptimal function. The chronology of the fossil record. Ontogeny. Past biogeography. Present biogeography. Transposons. Pseudogenes. Retroviral inserts.
Do you accept chapter one where the animals are created and later man or do you accept chapter two where man is created and then the animals as potential helpers for man?
Do you accept the part about a fixed dome over the earth that separates the earth from the waters above it and which has windows to allow for the rain. Do you accept the part about stars being relatively nearby lights that are fixed into this dome? What about the storehouses for the hail and snow.
These are all explicitly stated, yet I doubt you take them literally.
" If you want to read some of the things wrong with evolutionary theory, look at http://www.icr.org/ for some information."
I have. When I was YE. The material was so erroneous even to me, someone who already agreed, that I was forced to examine the alternatives. Guess what? I found out that the alterantives were true. I was convinced of OE by the YE arguments.
"I am no scientist, but I do know the scientific method and that origin science doesn't care a whit for it."
Someone alse said the same thing earlier. It is not true. Here is my response.
So let's see how evolution stacks up.Scientific method has been around for centuries ... Maybe you could practice it.
... Evolution has never been tested according to the standard of scientific method."
False assertion.
For giggles, let's Google "scientific method." The first hit is
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
It states the scientific method as follows.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
Step 1. I have given you a partial list of observations above. So check.
Step 2. Well, we hypothesize that these observations seem to show that all life may be related. So we will go with that as a hypthesis. New life forms can develop from other life forms.
Step 3. Now the fun begins. Let's look at a few examples.
Take whales for example. They are sea dwelling mammals. During their development, they have cute little legs and feet that emerge and then are reabsorbed. Sometimes this programmed cell death does not occur and the whales are born with full on rear legs. Well, we'll predict that whales have a land dwelling ancestor and we should be able to find fossil of such. And we do. Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus and many others. Well, once we have the fossils we see that they show whales evolving from ungulates. So if we test modern ungulates we should find them closely related to whales. We test and they are. Now, if whales came from land animals, they then once had a functional sense of smell. We might be able to find the remains of the genes for this system. And guess what, whales have scores of pseudogenes of a sense of smell just like what the land animals to which it is related have.
Man has traits that makes us another ape. There should be links between us and the other apes. And there are. (For a whole thread on the genetic links see http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/19.html? ) Some of the links are genetic. We find shared pseudogenes and retroviral inserts and transposons between man and the other apes. We have a rich fosil record leading back to common ancestors.
The fossil record shows the horses and rhinos share a common ancestor. We predict that genetics should show the same link. And it does.
Darwin even predicted that there must be a means for carrying the instructions for making life. Last century we found it, DNA.
So, evolution passes the thrid step with flying colors. This third step is where we really spend all of our time in debates.
Step 4. Well here we refine our theory as we make more observations and we see how different scientists support different notions with new discoveries. Some ideas are cast off in favor of new ones, such as cladogenesis replacing orthogenesis for the most part, but such is the process. We have lab experiments where rapid evolution can be observed. Evolution meets the criteria of the fourth stage.
So we see, contrary to your assertion, that evolution does follow the scientific method. Perhaps someone has tried to deceive you. Why would anyone promoting the "truth" need to do such.</font>[/QUOTE]http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/40/2.html#000028
"Oh and I did not say there was no evidence, I said it was not proven. There is a difference you know."
And nothing in science is ever proven. You should know that. But if you wish to object to the current explanation for that evidence you must both tell us what is wrong with the current theories AND provide a a testable, falsifible, predictive theory that BETTER explains the observations. Such as the twin nested heirachy. Anatomical parahomology.
Molecular parahomology. Convergence of independant heirachies. The know transitional series.
Anatomical vestiges. Genetic vestiges. Atavisms. Suboptimal function. The chronology of the fossil record. Ontogeny. Past biogeography. Present biogeography. Transposons. Pseudogenes. Retroviral inserts.