>Your web page does not say... "I believe in one Adam that was created as
>a (fill in the blank... austrolopithecus?) at least x billions of years
>ago. It is confusing and one can easily interpret your position as
>2-Adam because you identify humans as being 5.5 million years old but
>place Genesis 1 at x billion years BP.
>
OK. I apologize for being confusing.
GR>As to tests, if you read, as you must have, the post entitled "Jim's poorvi
GR>of the Neanderthal" you would see the predictions. Predictions are how
GR>theories are tested. My view is fully testable.
>Dr. Gerald Holton, writing in "Concepts and Theories in Physical
>Science", identifies several qualifications for theories. They correlate
>many separate facts in an easily understood, logical order, they suggest
>new relationships of those facts, and we should be able to deduce
>predictions that check with experience by test. You are correct in your
>assertion.
>
>Hanging our hat on the predictive aspects of a theory do not make it
>good. Holton noted that "assumptions should be plausable" and "A theory
>which needs a separate mechanism for each fact that it wishes to explain
>is nothing more but an elaborate and sterile tautology."
>
But I do not believe my theory needs a separate assumption for each fact. My
views are an attempt to place all of modern science, and especially the facts
of geology, within a Christian/Biblical framework. As such, it covers lots of
various disciplines each discipline has their own theories and explanations.
If by incorporating these various disciplines you say I am using separate
mechanisms, I plead guilty. I can not see how the assumption that DNA carries
the hereditary information can be used to explain the filling of the
Mediterranean. Nor can I see how the assumption that the laws of physics have
been the same throughout history can explain the anthropological data.
>Einstein noted that truly good theories possess two additional
>qualities... the external confirmation, or the external experimental
>tests as you have noted... and the inner perfection, which judges its
>"logical simplicity" or "naturalness".
>
Einstein was speaking of physics theory. Einstein didn't know splat about
geology or anthropology.
>Layered evolutionary theories of origins that require other theories as
>a presumption fail the inner perfection test.
So does the theory of the formation of river deltas, sand bars, limestone
formation, steel-making, bread baking and history. You are trying to apply
Einstein's criteria to an area of where it has no business. The "inner
perfection" refers to mathematical theories.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm