Hi, Herman, and welcome to EvC.
Ai-ya. Where to begin?
-
quote:
Secular science is dogmatic about trying to establish evolution
as an undeniable fact, and is not interested in accepting or exploring other possibilities, no matter how plausible they may be.
Actually, this is not quite true. Secular science will consider all possible explanations. By "possible", though, we mean that the explanation accords with observed evidence. So far, the theory of evolution is supported by virtually all of the known evidence in biology and geology. No other explanation is known to be supported by the evidence. By "possible", science does not consider the dogmatic convictions of a particular religious sect, no matter how vocal or politically connected they are. The fact is that the evidence supports the theory of evolution, not the literal Genesis account of creation.
-
quote:
The theory does not take the responsibility of stating how life originated.
That is true. The theory of evolution is concerned with how life has changed after it originated. That is not to say that origins in not an interesting and important topic, and that biology in general is complete without knowing the origins of its subject matter, just that origins in not entirely within the purview of the theory of evolution.
-
quote:
It delegates that to the theory of the “Big Bang”, which states that all matter in the universe was somehow contained In a very small dense hot atom, molecule, or singularity, which exploded into all the elements and celestial bodies of the universe, about 16 billion years ago.
Not quite. The Big Bang merely states that the universe was initially in a very hot, very dense state, and expanded. This is what the evidence shows us happened.
-
quote:
Never mind what caused that to happen
At this time, the "cause", if there is one, is unknown, and may be unknowable. But this does not negate the evidence that informs us as to the subsequent history.
-
quote:
Somehow, that explosion of inorganic matter is to have produced organic attributes somewhere in outer space that would later find its way to planet Earth and begin to grow.
Actually, this isn't part of the scenario at all. It is pretty much known how organic molecules can form from inorganic precursors in interstellar space and on the primordial earth. In fact, the current theories are that the organic material that was used in the formation of the first life formed on the earth. We actually have experimental evidence to show that this is plausible.
-
quote:
But before we talk about the growth of life forms, we have to accept the theory that our solar system was formed from a previous exploded star, which condensed and re-exploded, much like the Big Bang theory.
Actually, stellar formation and evolution has very little to do with the cosmological Big Bang. At any rate, again, we have plenty of evidence to support our notions of stellar evolution.
-
quote:
This is called the Nebular Hypothesis, which has the cloud of gas and dust to start spinning and flattening out to form the shape of a rotating pancake, with a bulge in the middle.
Again, a hypothesis that is well supported by the available evidence.
-
quote:
I guess that the molecules of life had to remain in a holding pattern around Earth until the conditions were “just right” to sustain life and get the “primordial soup” ready.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Of course, life could not have formed before it was possible. Then, when the conditions allowed it to happened, it did. In the meantime, where do you think the material was going to go?
-
quote:
For decades, evolutionists have been claiming, that the first life on Earth appeared in that "primordial soup" consisting of some
body of water loaded with chemicals necessary for the start of life.
Again, scenarios about the origin of life are supported by the available evidence.
-
quote:
Now, we have finally reached solid evidence to examine, which is the fossil record of past life forms, and the evidence of past geologic ages on Earth.
Except that the evidence exists in many different fields of biology and geology, including taxonomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and so forth. And pretty solid evidence it is, too. The fossil record, too, provides excellent evidence of the evolutionary history of life on earth (tranistional forms are quite abundant, in fact), but it is only a small part of the total evidence.
-
quote:
What about the “Observations of Moses”?
Well, since it is not clear that Moses even existed, I don't see how any of this compares to the actual physical evidence that overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution.
-
Your post sure covers a lot of ground. There are many, many threads that talk about the particular evidence
for the theory of evolution. If you wish to discuss any of the points that you have brought up, you are more than welcome to join the discussion of any of these points in the appropriate thread. If you don't feel any of the existing threads are appropriate for the point you wish to discuss, you may start a new thread.
However, this thread is about
falsification of the theory of evolution. Would you like to discuss how the theory of evolution can be falsified, what sorts of evidence would suggest that the theory of evolution is incomplete or even incorrect?
"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
--
Ernie Cline
™ Version 4.2
