"evolutionary theory barely addresses or cares about this issue"
You're right, the evolutionist hardly ever addresses the FACT that his THEORY is based on assumptions.
Ever read any school or even college text which made this point clear? Probably not.
However, it is an issue. That is why you had all those experiments where they tried to show that you can make amino acids using a particular atmosphere and current. Without proving that you can spontaneously generate life, evolution is dead. However, even those experiments where amino acids were produced; huge assumptions in that they don’t really know what the atmosphere was like at the time were hand waved away. They have some guesses, but no real certain information and an amino acid is still miles from a living cell. But we would rather just use (interpret) the information based on a test (designed to show what we want to hear) and extrapolate this and say that given this atmosphere and some lightning we’d get life from dead pond scum. When you really break evolution down into its most elemental state. What is it really saying? You end up realizing that this theory is pretty wild, is based on several heavy assumptions, does NOT answer many questions, has had many intentional deceits and misguided efforts to prove its validity, is in some ways contradicting and yet considered the “truth” and an undeniable fact.
I won’t even discuss any further. After a tirade about how there are no assumptions in evolution I list them. Then you arm wave them away. Just the first assumption is a MOUNTAIN.
Red6
You're referring to the abiogenesis hypothesis, not evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis is interesting in its own right, but since we don't have any sort of record from anywhere near that time period, and we haven't yet been able to completely recreate primordial life in laboratory conditions, it remains very much a hypothesis. It's a complement to evolutionary theory, not a part of the theory itself.
You're right, the evolutionist hardly ever addresses the FACT that his THEORY is based on assumptions.
Sigh. As are all scientific theories. As are all theories. As is all language.
Ever read any school or even college text which made this point clear? Probably not.
My, you speak so forcefully, given the lack of observation behind it. Every scientist has this drilled into his noggen just about before he stops wetting his diaper. It is a fundamental tenate of the scientific method.
However, it is an issue. That is why you had all those experiments where they tried to show that you can make amino acids using a particular atmosphere and current. Without proving that you can spontaneously generate life, evolution is dead.
Dated Creationist horsemanure. It has been pretty clear for some time now that there can be slow, non-miraculous pathways to cellular life. It is not necessary to assume the miracle this argument depends on.
However, even those experiments where amino acids were produced; huge assumptions in that they don’t really know what the atmosphere was like at the time were hand waved away.
They have some guesses, but no real certain information and an amino acid is still miles from a living cell.'
At bottom, nobody has anything but guesses, some guesses, however, are better than others. There have been plenty of trapped atmosphere observations where a chronological column was clear--as in ice and ambergris and several other such. And, at any rate, this isn't really a very telling arguement against the basic picture now emerging, which is more concerned about ambient tempererature, rather than specific atmospheric composition.
But we would rather just use (interpret) the information based on a test I won’t even discuss any further.
I wouldn't want to either, if I were you. This is a classic strawman--making up a theory that science doesn't hold, and then refuting it soundly--you must be so proud.
After a tirade about how there are no assumptions in evolution dI list them.
Show me where I said we don't make assumptions in evolution. Of course we make assumptions in evolution, just as we do in every branch of human affairs.
Then you arm wave them away.
I did not "wave them away", I pointed out that half weren't true, and I ceded the rest. Read more carefully
Just the first assumption is a MOUNTAIN.
So you say. I think that's just an ASSUMPTION, and I don't think science gives a tinker's poop about it one way or another. It is not a relevant question to biological science as presently practiced. Science doesn't care whether God-did-it or a nasty bit of lightning did it. The result material manifestations are the same, and that's all science cares for or has competence about: material manifestations.