>"Did they? Can you provide a quote that "Evolution" (ie. as a whole)
>"predicted that there should be some type of transitional fossil with
>legs between the Mesonychids and the Whales." THis is not to say they
>didn't (I don't know enough about the details and they might have had
>better evidence that I am aware of). But I would like to test Glenn's
>claim nevertheless. AFAIK evolution is not very good at making exact
>predictions and there are many, many examples where things have not
>turned out as evolutionists predicted or hoped.<
How about the Encyclopaedia Britannica from 1982, prior to the discovery in
the early 1990's of Ambulocetus.
They state:
"All that can be stated with certainty is that the ancestors of the
protocetids must have evolved through an amphibious stage." Vol 19 p. 809
What does this mean? A look at mammals which are engaged in an amphibious
lifestyle now are the seal, walrus and otter.All have feet although modified
in the case of seals and walrus'.
I wrote:
>>Most predictions from most creationists of
>>the time was that there was a gap which would never be filled.
Stephen replied
>This confuses PC with FC (fiat creationists). The latter may make make
>detailed predictions at the species level, but to my knowledge PC's
>don't.
OK, it's your turn. I know of no predictions on the existence of any species
or morphology made by either PC or FC. While you say PC doesn't make
predictions, which agrees with my original point, can you cite any FC
prediction?
I wrote:
>Secondly, God must have engaged in tens of thousands of creative acts
>over the years, so what is this stuff about creation being done in
>seven events/acts/days or periods? How do you divide the geologic
>ages into seven periods? On what evidence? PC raises some thorny
>and unaswered questions.
Stephen replied
>These problems are just straw men, probably arising out of your YEC
>background, Glenn! <g> Even FC doesn't claim the events mentioned in
>the 6 days are exhaustive. To PC Gn 1 is simply saying that God
>created progressively over time the entire world as we know it.
>
No, they are not straw men arising out of my YEC background. The issue
arises from my view of epistemology. If you say that a rock falls according
to x=-1/2*g*t*t, then I can go into the lab and check you out within the
errors of my measurment ability. I can then state "As far as I can tell
this statement is true" or "This statement is definitely false" If you
state that you went to the grocery store yesterday, the I can go interview
the employees of the store and determine if you were there or not. That
statement about your visit to the grocery store is either true or false.
Fuzzy logic does not apply here. If God says, "I created the world in seven
days" then that statement, like the statement is either true or false. Even
if you substitute 'ages' for 'days' the statement still has a nonfuzzy logic
standard of truth. Either he did it in seven ages/days/acts or he didn't.
PC, it seems to me, falsifies all views of that statement. You suggest that
Carnell might be correct that the 'kinds' are orders. The problem with this
is that different orders of life appear many, many more times than at seven
different times in the fossil record. So please define for me what the seven
refers to.
Stephen wrote:
>Glenn, I expected to find a <g> or a :-) after this, but I think you
>are actually serious! Do you really believe that PC's claim that God
>directly and individually created "each species"?
Stephen, if you are going to jump into an exchange between Mark Phillips and
I, please understand what both parties are talking about. Mark made the
suggestion that God individually made each species (at least that is what I
understood him to say). I pointed out to him that that was more like TE than
PC. I know perfectly well what PC says
Stephen wrote:
>"I repeat, PC (as far as I understand it) is not meant to be a low
>level scientific theory, making detailed predictions. It is (at least
>at this stage of its development) a higher level model that tries to
>relate the Biblical data regarding creation and providence with the
>relevant scientific facts. It works on the basic assumption that the
>two books of God, the Bible and nature, have the one Author and hence
>must ultimately agree.
Then you agree with my criticism of PC?. It makes no predictions. At least
we agree here. I fully agree that the Bible and Nature must be able to be
joined into one view.
If you feel comfortable with PC that is fine. But until you can tell me
what the seven refers to I fail to see that there has been a successful union
of Scripture and Science here.
glenn