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.
Well,
If it were so simple and clear as you write I’d agree with you. But it’s not.
Here are the issues with what you stated:
Fossil remains DO NOT EXIST as you state. Most the stuff you see in text books, natural history museums (I have one near in Frankfurt GE {Senkenberg}) are extrapolations based on a very very limited amount of evidence which may or may not support their little models of what they “think”. Some of those evolving skeletons are pure speculation even. Ask the curator if they have any actual skeletons there or anywhere else to support their mock-up? The answer will be “No, but we have lots of evidence supporting that this is what he would have looked like”. If you take all fossil evidence we have (World wide) of prehistoric man (Not molds of the originals, man made extrapolations that are added on, complete recreations of what we think) you end up with less than one coffin full of bones. Most of the bones are Neanderthal and other recent bones. The overwhelming fossil evidence you speak of DOES NOT EXIST.
Science is full of examples where it was used to prove stuff like phrenology and other bogus things. I listed several already. Science is not really always so scientific as it’s told. I explained the errors made. The questions posed, the populations tested, the conclusions drawn are often skewed by the tester, whether intentional or unintentional. Science does NOT live in a vacuum of human feelings, emotions. What you define as junk science is that which you don’t like or agree with. Combine a little name calling, a simple and primitive fallacy and the logical explanation of why one should believe in evolution as a fact is complete.
Actually they DO NOT know what the atmosphere was composed of at that time. Ice drillings do NOT go that far back. You do know what time period we are talking about (reference the supposed origin of first life). There is no sap with trapped air bubbles, not tree rings. This all came a lot later. The atmosphere at the time of life’s conception is UNKNOWN. It’s PURE speculation.
Again, evolution will certainly change (In specifics) from the way it’s told today. That has happened several times already. Maybe in the future someone can conclusively prove this theory. Until then it’s a theory and should be taught as such. Explaining every one away as a religious nut who demands that alternative theories, it’s pitfalls and historic errors be taught is not scientific, open minded or a believer in a Socratic education. That’s one sided brainwashing.
Red6