Assumptions required for evolutionary theory?

LewisWildermuth said:

The basic assumptions that evolution, and all of science, has to make are:

I (the observer) exist.
The universe (the things being observed) exist.
I (the observer) can have a relationship (can effect, measure, test) the universe (the things being observed).

That is it, the rest is testable and able to be falsified.

Click to expand...

this is pretty much the same list i have in my head as well. except that i had the "goodness" of looking at the world in a scientific way. that is the desacralization of the world ideal. Even if the above 3 exist, if a society believes it is evil to investigate the world, or worthless then science will not take off in that society.

Lion of God said:

Evolutionism assumes:

Click to expand...

I don't know about my fellow TE's, but I sure love being told what I believe, and upon what I base my understandings.

So here's what creationism assumes:

1. The Earth is flat
2. The Bible in its present form is perfect
3. People are inerrant
4. God is incapable of working through evolution
5. Understanding is for losers
6. God's favourite colour is blue
7. God hates ****
8. The Bible is God
9. Michael Behe is the smrtest man alive
10. Rock 'n' Roll is the music of the Devil

This is how you creationist folks are coming across. These are the same ludicrous kinds of claims made against evolution - none of which are remotely true. If you insist on raging against evolution, know your enemy and read a book besides the Bible. Reading non-canonical books is not a sin.

3. People are inerrant

Click to expand...

No, Mallon ... creationists believe that creationist people are inerrant. Evolutionists are either suppressed creationists, hopelessly inept, or have sold their soul to the devil.

Lion of God said:

Evolutionism assumes:

1. Heliocentricity
2. Errant scripture
3. Uniformatism
4. Dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago
5. Abiogenesis
6. The present is the key to the past
7. Genetic similarities are proof of common ancestry
8. There is no plan, goal, or purpose in the universe
9. 15+ Billion year Universe
10. 4.5 Billion year Earth
11. Unbroken line of descent since abiogenesis
12. The Bible contains little or no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science
13. Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements

Click to expand...

Lion of God, this is really a shameful post. You have participated in threads for which most of these things have been shown to have nothing to do with evolution. You don't realize how desperate such a post makes you sound. Why do you even do this?

Mallon said:

I don't know about my fellow TE's, but I sure love being told what I believe, and upon what I base my understandings.

So here's what creationism assumes:

1. The Earth is flat
2. The Bible in its present form is perfect
3. People are inerrant
4. God is incapable of working through evolution
5. Understanding is for losers
6. God's favourite colour is blue
7. God hates ****
8. The Bible is God
9. Michael Behe is the smrtest man alive
10. Rock 'n' Roll is the music of the Devil

This is how you creationist folks are coming across. These are the same ludicrous kinds of claims made against evolution - none of which are remotely true. If you insist on raging against evolution, know your enemy and read a book besides the Bible. Reading non-canonical books is not a sin.

Click to expand...

Mallon, don't respond in kind. Lion of God is trolling.

Lion of God said:

11. Unbroken line of descent since abiogenesis

Click to expand...

Care to identify anyone who has a direct ancestor that did not reproduce?

the shame of this thread is that there are important things to learn about presuppositions and how they lead into conclusions. but with silly posting like a few of the above, not only are we not going to go anywhere with the discussion, but anyone who can contribute is not going to sub to the thread.

On the Narrow Road said:

First, do you really expect me to believe that fossils have only been found in the order that evolution predicts??? It seems to me that in itself is an assumption since you haven't posted any souces for the statement.

Click to expand...

go to this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2828552-the-smoking-gun.html
starting at about reply #6 there are referenced links to fossils and the order which they are found. also check out talkorigins.org. there's lots there on fossils.

On the Narrow Road said:

BTW did the output of the sun change in those 4 billion years? Was the sun larger or smaller?

Click to expand...

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lifecycles/Imagine2.pdf
read that file from Nasa.gov and u will see that the next phase of the sun is to actually get larger. the current phase of the sun fights the gravitational pull with the nuclear reaction pushing outwards. the life cycle of a star isn't as simple as YEC propaganda says. it's not just "stars burn energy and get smaller"

On the Narrow Road said:

I agree that the assumption is that we are getting accurate data. Another assumption is that we are properly interpreting the data.

Click to expand...

your assumption is that u are properly interpretting Genesis.

On the Narrow Road said:

OK, let's not get tangled up in the assumption/conclusion thing here. Almost all conclusions have some sort of assumption behind it. You mention an old earth and evidence. We have assumptions built in to the evidence. For example, we must assume the amount of carbon in the atmosphere remained constant if our radio carbon dating is to be accurate.

Click to expand...

http://www.christianforums.com/t1214766-radioactive-dating-101.html
the above link has an explanation of c14 dating, since you've only read about it on YEC websites. post #6 in that thread addresses and assumption as well. i suggest you read the whole explanation instead of just reading the intro sentence about the assumption and saying, AH HA!

also, the following link has a great explanation and discusses many of the assumption at the beginning. it will be a great read for u.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1316871-radiometric-dating.html

On the Narrow Road said:

I am curious how many different assumptions one accepts when subscribing to the theory of evolution. As such, I would like this thread to be a list of assumptions rather than a creation/evolution debate.

For example: In order for evolution to have occurred, we have to assume that the earth has remained in a near perfect orbit, unmolested for X million years (due to the conditions required to sustain life).

Click to expand...

"Assumption" is a term much over-used by creationists. Often it is applied to scientific conclusions for which they are unwillingly to check out the evidence which led to the conclusion.

As has already been mentioned, neither of the above is an assumption relevant to evolution. That the earth has been in its current orbit throughout its history is a conclusion from the evidence. The second is a false assumption, since the life has survived through several "molestations" of the planet.

First, do you really expect me to believe that fossils have only been found in the order that evolution predicts???

Click to expand...

Nobody expects you to believe it. We hope you will check it out to see if it is true. When (if?) you do, you will find this to be the case.

It seems to me that in itself is an assumption since you haven't posted any souces for the statement.

Click to expand...

Not posting a source is only evidence of not posting a source (and maybe of laziness or fatigue). It is not evidence that no source exists.

There are plenty of easily reached sources. Here is one:


http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/historyoflife/histoflife.html

Fine it's a conclusion, based on the assumption that we are properly interpreting the evidence.

Click to expand...

I agree that the assumption is that we are getting accurate data. Another assumption is that we are properly interpreting the data.

Click to expand...

Science does not assume that evidence is being properly interpreted. Interpretations are tested to see if they are accurate.

I am somewhat curious about how we can have predictable, yet random mutations. These seem to be mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

No. "random" describes how we perceive mutations on a case-by-case basis. "Predictable" describes how we see them on a statistical basis. These are not mutually exclusive at all, as any insurance company can tell you.

You mention an old earth and evidence. We have assumptions built in to the evidence. For example, we must assume the amount of carbon in the atmosphere remained constant if our radio carbon dating is to be accurate.

Click to expand...

First the reference is to C14, not carbon generally. Secondly, you are probably referring to the ratio of C14 to C12. But even when we have the terminology right, you are still mistaken. Not only has science never assumed that the C14/C12 ratio is constant; it is, in fact, not constant. There are several means of measuring the variations in the c14/c12 ratio in past times. These measurements are used to calibrate dating via c14 decay.

It is neither the amount of c14 nor the c14/c12 ratio which must be constant, but the rate at which c14 decays. That this rate is constant is not an assumption either, but a well-tested observation.

My point in going over these is not so much to correct information (although that is one goal), as to show that many "assumptions" presumed by creationists, are not really assumptions at all.

Some are real conclusions based on evidence. Some are creationist assumptions that are actually incorrect. In either case they show ignorance of what science is really saying.

Scientists do not assume that data is accurate. They do complex experiments to determine HOW accurate data actually is. Try to publish a scientific paper in a journal with no error analysis and see how fast you get rejected by peer review! (Shamefully, I've done that, though I wasn't the primary author).

It's also a bit disingenuous to claim that scientists "assume" that they properly interpret the data. I mean, it's true that every scientist THINKS they have correctly interpreted the data, but the interpretations are as varied as the scientists who study biology. This is really where science triumphs as scientists endlessly debate the interpretations. As I said before, things like the existance of evolution (not smaller issues like lineage or primary mechanisms) is generally assumed but ONLY because it has been concluded based on evidence. There's a class at your local university teaching evolutionary biology which explains the evidence and reasoning behind the conclusion.

At some point, scientists do move beyond, "does evolution exist" to, "how can I use evolution to create the next flu vaccine?"

1. Heliocentricity

Geocentricity is just as if not more valid of a model. Helio works better for Evo's because it started the process of questioning the literalness of the bible and opened the door to an expanding universe with its supposed great age. Without this assumption based only on mathematics invented for the purpose of "proving" heliocentricity, evolution wouldn't have been able to get a foothold in mainstream thought.


2. Errant scripture

Maybe a TE can get by with "allegorical" viewpoints but secular evolutionists don't play that game and therefore assume the bible is simply wrong.

3. Uniformatism

Geological uniformitarianism (thx Dan) is a required assumption to "prove" the age of the Earth which in turn lends credibility to the idea of evolution. The doctrine was also a basis for determining the age and order of the fossil record. Admitting the evident catastrophism puts a serious dent into the ToE.


4. Dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago

A conclusion based on the assumption of Uniformitarianism.

5. Abiogenesis

Play with it all you want but without abiogenesis there is no evolution. Therefore like it or not it is still a required assumption.

6. The present is the key to the past

The observed data and processes of today need to be extrapolated back in time . Geological processes, atomic decay, and cosmic expansion are assumed to be universal and uniform. When dating organic matter, it is assumed that the 14C/12C ratio in the atmosphere has never changed, which requires that the Earth's magnetic field be constant. Natural laws continue today as they are assumed to have in the past.

7. Genetic similarities are proof of common ancestry

Another assumption. Genetic similarities can just as well be proof of a common designer.

8. There is no plan, goal, or purpose in the universe

An assumption in spite of everything evolving rather than devolving.

9. 15+ Billion year Universe
10. 4.5 Billion year Earth

Assumptions based on other assumptions (see above)

11. Unbroken line of descent since abiogenesis

There are other Origins models that would allow a worldwide extinction event with life being recreated for another round. A much more likely scenario.

12. The Bible contains little or no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science

To the degree that Evo's deny a God driven abiogenesis event that created the major kinds, do they assume the bible having no relevant ideas. Since they maintain that evolution has no opinion on abiogenesis, their assumptions or supposed lack of are in conflict with observable data.

13. Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements

This assumption has to be true or there wouldn't be such a thing as Theistic Evolution. Evo pronouncements require mythologizing the scriptures to get it lining up with how God says He created everything.

Geocentricity is just as if not more valid of a model. Helio works better for Evo's because it started the process of questioning the literalness of the bible and opened the door to an expanding universe with its supposed great age. Without this assumption based only on mathematics invented for the purpose of "proving" heliocentricity, evolution wouldn't have been able to get a foothold in mainstream thought.

you have company on this idea:
Forget about the "evils of Darwinism"
Some creationists say the initial blame lies with the "evils of Copernicanism!

from: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/copernicanism.html


The observed data and processes of today need to be extrapolated back in time . Geological processes, atomic decay, and cosmic expansion are assumed to be universal and uniform. When dating organic matter, it is assumed that the 14C/12C ratio in the atmosphere has never changed, which requires that the Earth's magnetic field be constant. Natural laws continue today as they are assumed to have in the past.

no. most ideas about the past being pretty much governed by the forces we see today have good evidence for that idea.
we have lakes varves back 120K years. no evidence of universal or global floods.

and no, the scientific understanding of the rate C12->C14 rate has changed, since C14 dating was invented and as a result the field adapted and learned and now there are elaborate correction factors based on dendrochronology. C14 is actually a really good study on how science discovers and reacts when it finds assumptions and low level theories that aren't not quite right. i only wish theology responded as well. unfortunately YECists are not really interested in the science and continue to use this example, when it really is a very good example of how science modifies very low level ideas when the real world does not fit the theories.
but i suspect this idea will just pass over some people's heads and we will hear again that the rate of C12-C14 can change over time and this disproves C14 dating technique. rats, proves study and learning is required to advance the discussion.

Another assumption. Genetic similarities can just as well be proof of a common designer.
a designer that never swaps modules, that never makes one thing well and puts it into other creatures but has them suffer, like we do with scurvey, when the fix is right there. actually Darwin himself was really bugged by natural theodicy, parasitic wasps and caterpillars. i only wish YECists had half the theological insight on this issue that Darwin himself showed.

someday YECists are going to learn the difference between assumptions and conclusions and we can dispense with such nonsense.

Willtor said:

Lion of God, this is really a shameful post. You have participated in threads for which most of these things have been shown to have nothing to do with evolution. You don't realize how desperate such a post makes you sound. Why do you even do this?

Click to expand...

Willtor, all those assumptions support ToE directly or indirectly. Why do you presume that just because a particular answer satisfies you, it does the same for me?
My origins view is not bothered by an old Earth or evolution but that doesn't mean I am going to accept an assumption based on an assumption, grounded in circular reasoning, no matter how reputable the scientist.

The OP specifically said he wasn't trying to stir a debate in this thread. I simply listed a number of assumptions that imo, ToE relies on for its validity. Considering the amount of people who chose to debate the points should tell you were the desperation lies.

Considering the amount of people who chose to debate the points should tell you were the desperation lies.

i find this fascinating logic.

the number of people responding to X is dependent not on the wrongness of X but on their desperation to refute X.

this appears to be potentially true only if the evidence that they give for refutation is very wrong or nothing more than an emotional appeal. if in fact, they are presenting good evidence that X is not true, i would not bet that their motivations are desperation but rather an understanding of the issues.

I think one I haven't seen yet is the assumption of parsimony, i.e. that all else being equal, the more parsimonious an explanation of nature is the more likely it is to be true. Consider these two alternative scenarios:

1. Radioactive materials in the earth have been decaying for the past 4.5 billion years.

2. Radioactive materials in the earth have been decaying for the past 6,000 years, with a mysterious God-o-force massively accelerating their decay on earth, miraculously siphoning away any amount of excess heat which would melt the earth, extending the radius of accelerated decay to the entire solar system while leaving decay rates elsewhere in the universe untouched (hence SN1987A which itself has to be explained by omphalos v2.0 then).

Or these:

1. Life has had an unbroken lineal descent from the first lifeform to today.

2. Somewhere 6-10 thousand years ago a massive catastrophe struck the earth, left no trace, and God recreated the entire biota of the planet to look just as if it had directly descended from the previous life which was wiped out, granting somesortofa quantum-overloading supernatural gene pool to the ancestors which somehow avoided the exhibiting of any detectable founder or genetic drift effects.

Now, both options 2 are theoretically possible. But parsimony gives us enough reason to believe that until credible substantiative evidence for options 2 (which are barely disprovable, hence barely provable) emerges, options 1 are the best options.

1. Heliocentricity

Geocentricity is just as if not more valid of a model. Helio works better for Evo's because it started the process of questioning the literalness of the bible and opened the door to an expanding universe with its supposed great age. Without this assumption based only on mathematics invented for the purpose of "proving" heliocentricity, evolution wouldn't have been able to get a foothold in mainstream thought.

Click to expand...

And you can prove that Darwin's heresy was directly descended from Copernicus' insolence. Evolution would work even if the sun went around the earth (though the results might've been interestingly different).

2. Errant scripture

Maybe a TE can get by with "allegorical" viewpoints but secular evolutionists don't play that game and therefore assume the bible is simply wrong.

Click to expand...

The only reason secular evolutionists don't play that game is because fundy Christians play the same game as them and therefore they don't even have to step into the TE's ballpark to do damage to Christianity's image. Why walk across town and try on the other guy's shoes trying to challenge him when you've got punching bags in your own backyard of scientism?

3. Uniformatism

Geological uniformitarianism (thx Dan) is a required assumption to "prove" the age of the Earth which in turn lends credibility to the idea of evolution. The doctrine was also a basis for determining the age and order of the fossil record. Admitting the evident catastrophism puts a serious dent into the ToE.

Click to expand...

Admitting the "evident catastrophisms" like the Cambrian explosion and the K-T boundary event haven't put serious dents into the ToE.

4. Dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago

A conclusion based on the assumption of Uniformitarianism.

Click to expand...

Extant dinosaurs today wouldn't pose any problem for evolution, though paleontology might wonder where they'd spent the last 65 million years. Now if somebody could dig up a Cambrian rabbit ...

5. Abiogenesis

Play with it all you want but without abiogenesis there is no evolution. Therefore like it or not it is still a required assumption.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. I, panspermia theorists, and Omega-point singularitarians (some of them) believe that life did not arise on Earth by natural means but evolved from first life into our current biodiversity anyway. Even within the special creation model evolution occurs, as creationists have to admit.

6. The present is the key to the past

The observed data and processes of today need to be extrapolated back in time . Geological processes, atomic decay, and cosmic expansion are assumed to be universal and uniform. When dating organic matter, it is assumed that the 14C/12C ratio in the atmosphere has never changed, which requires that the Earth's magnetic field be constant. Natural laws continue today as they are assumed to have in the past.

Click to expand...

Assumptions proved by historic records, unless you want to argue omphalos.

7. Genetic similarities are proof of common ancestry

Another assumption. Genetic similarities can just as well be proof of a common designer.

Click to expand...

And this just shows that IDism is unprovable.

8. There is no plan, goal, or purpose in the universe

An assumption in spite of everything evolving rather than devolving.

Click to expand...

Even atheistic evolutionists do not need to assume this. Some believe (and rightly, I think) that life is a natural, self-assembling property of any consistent system of energy transfer - a theme common in science fiction.

9. 15+ Billion year Universe
10. 4.5 Billion year Earth

Assumptions based on other assumptions (see above)

Click to expand...

Observations based on observations based on basic assumptions of reality and parsimony.

11. Unbroken line of descent since abiogenesis

There are other Origins models that would allow a worldwide extinction event with life being recreated for another round. A much more likely scenario.

Click to expand...

Far less parsimonious.

12. The Bible contains little or no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science

To the degree that Evo's deny a God driven abiogenesis event that created the major kinds, do they assume the bible having no relevant ideas. Since they maintain that evolution has no opinion on abiogenesis, their assumptions or supposed lack of are in conflict with observable data.

Click to expand...

God created all major kinds through evolution.

13. Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements

This assumption has to be true or there wouldn't be such a thing as Theistic Evolution. Evo pronouncements require mythologizing the scriptures to get it lining up with how God says He created everything.

Click to expand...

Treating scripture as allegory was one of the default modes of medieval Biblical interpretation, long before evolution was around.

Lion of God said:

Willtor, all those assumptions support ToE directly or indirectly. Why do you presume that just because a particular answer satisfies you, it does the same for me?
My origins view is not bothered by an old Earth or evolution but that doesn't mean I am going to accept an assumption based on an assumption, grounded in circular reasoning, no matter how reputable the scientist.

Click to expand...

Few of them have anything to do with evolution, actually. If abiogenesis is what happened, then it's what happened. If it isn't, then it isn't. But it really has no impact on evolution. If it were discovered that it were possible, it would become a new science unto itself. It would have obvious tie-ins to evolution, biology, biochemistry, etc. But it would be its own science.

Also, there's no such thing as an assumption based on an assumption. If it's based on something, then it's a conclusion. This is why something can be valid but not sound (true, if the premises are true, but the premises are not true). The conclusions of a valid argument are still valid. They simply aren't sound. The conclusions don't become assumptions.

You're asserting things like circular reasoning in science, but you have not made an argument supporting that.

All of this is the first part of what I'm talking about. You're lashing out without a firm grounding. Your arguments appear to be baseless accusations. I'm not saying they are (though, I think they are). I'm merely saying that you haven't supported them. Maybe if you would support them, we could see where you're coming from.

Lion of God said:

The OP specifically said he wasn't trying to stir a debate in this thread. I simply listed a number of assumptions that imo, ToE relies on for its validity. Considering the amount of people who chose to debate the points should tell you were the desperation lies.

Click to expand...

Yes, but your views of someone else's assumptions shouldn't be affected by your opinions. As to the quality of your reasoning, I'm going to make two arguments:

1. You're dealing, in this thread, with TE's (exclusively). What does it matter, in this context, what an Atheist thinks? Is there any relevance to the basis of his views? Certainly, there is a context for that, but not here. Given that there are TE's (and these are the people with whom you argue) how can Atheistic assumptions have anything to do with it? Let us suppose that errancy of Scripture was an anti-Christian view. Many of us who think that Scripture is inerrant would still think that we evolved. If we are wrong in our interpretation, then we are wrong. But it would be our interpretation that is mistaken. It is the same with you. If you cannot fathom that your interpretation might be flawed, it doesn't make it any less so.

2. An Atheist almost certainly thinks we evolved. But he also probably thinks Wegman's is open 24 hours a day. That an Atheist thinks that a thing is so is not a good reason do disbelieve it.

Treating scripture as allegory was the default mode of medieval Biblical interpretation, long before evolution was around.

allegory was one of the 4 fold ways.
from the wiki

Medieval Christian interpretations of text incorporated exegesis into a fourfold mode that emphasized the distinction between the letter and the spirit of the text. This schema was based on the various ways of interpreting the text utilitized by the Patristic writers. The literal sense (sensus historicus) of Scripture denotes what the text states or reports directly. The allegorical sense (sensus allegoricus) explains the text with regard to the doctrinal content of church dogma, so that each literal element has a symbolic meaning. The moral application of the text to the individual reader or hearer is the third sense, the sensus tropologicus or sensus moralis, while a fourth level of meaning, the sensus anagogicus, draws out of the text the implicit allusions it contains to secret metaphysical and eschatological knowledge, or gnosis.

Click to expand...

Lion of God said:

1. Heliocentricity

Geocentricity is just as if not more valid of a model. Helio works better for Evo's because it started the process of questioning the literalness of the bible and opened the door to an expanding universe with its supposed great age. Without this assumption based only on mathematics invented for the purpose of "proving" heliocentricity, evolution wouldn't have been able to get a foothold in mainstream thought.

Click to expand...

I'm confused. Does LoG actually believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth? If so, dialogue is absolutely useless.

You're contradicting yourself again, Lion of God...

Lion of God said:

3. Uniformatism

Admitting the evident catastrophism puts a serious dent into the ToE.

Click to expand...

4. Dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago

A conclusion based on the assumption of Uniformitarianism.

Click to expand...

If you were intellectually honest, Lion of God, I think you would note that the currently accepted explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs is a catastrophic meteor impact near the Yucatan Peninsula some 65 million years ago. This contradicts the type of 'uniformism' or gradualism you like to falsely attribute to evolutionary theory, and yet it is widely accepted in the palaeontological and geological communities.
So here is just one self-contradiction of many of yours. Your arguments are internally-inconsistent, and are worthy of no further consideration by anyone besides yourself (i.e. back to the drawing board with you).

rmwilliamsll said:

.....this appears to be potentially true only if the evidence that they give for refutation is very wrong or nothing more than an emotional appeal. if in fact, they are presenting good evidence that X is not true, i would not bet that their motivations are desperation but rather an understanding of the issues.

Click to expand...

Considering 5 different TE's chose to answer each of my claims and a couple of others several points each, I think desperation was the order of the day. After all, if there was a true understanding, one response would have been sufficient.

Willtor said:

All of this is the first part of what I'm talking about. You're lashing out without a firm grounding. Your arguments appear to be baseless accusations. I'm not saying they are (though, I think they are). I'm merely saying that you haven't supported them. Maybe if you would support them, we could see where you're coming from.

Click to expand...

Lashing out? Baseless accusations? Get a grip, Willtor. Just to remind you of what the OP asked for:

On the Narrow Road said:

I am curious how many different assumptions one accepts when subscribing to the theory of evolution. As such, I would like this thread to be a list of assumptions rather than a creation/evolution debate.

Click to expand...

And my response:

Lion of God said:

Evolutionism assumes:

1. Heliocentricity
2. Errant scripture
3. Uniformatism
4. Dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago
5. Abiogenesis
6. The present is the key to the past
7. Genetic similarities are proof of common ancestry
8. There is no plan, goal, or purpose in the universe
9. 15+ Billion year Universe
10. 4.5 Billion year Earth
11. Unbroken line of descent since abiogenesis
12. The Bible contains little or no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science
13. Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements

Click to expand...

Please tell me where in this post I was doing any of the things you are accusing me of? The only one's lashing out and making baseless accusations is the guy staring at you in the mirror and a couple of other TE's.

Willtor said:

1. You're dealing, in this thread, with TE's (exclusively). What does it matter,.........It is the same with you. If you cannot fathom that your interpretation might be flawed, it doesn't make it any less so.

Click to expand...

Did you note where I said "imo"? That is short form for IN MY OPINION. Not yours, Mallon's, Shenren's, etc but MINE and whether you like it or not I am entitled to one the same as you regardless of how wrong yours is.

Mallon said:

If you were intellectually honest, Lion of God, I think you would note that the currently accepted explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs is a catastrophic meteor impact near the Yucatan Peninsula some 65 million years ago. This contradicts the type of 'uniformism' or gradualism you like to falsely attribute to evolutionary theory, and yet it is widely accepted in the palaeontological and geological communities.
So here is just one self-contradiction of many of yours. Your arguments are internally-inconsistent, and are worthy of no further consideration by anyone besides yourself (i.e. back to the drawing board with you).

Click to expand...

Lol, I do get a kick out of your posts. You mention one catastrophic event in several billion years and call it catastrophism? That is more like a minor hiccup geologically speaking.
I was thinking of the type of catastrophies that turned the geological column upside down in various places around the world. Huge prehistoric animals graveyards showing evidence of very violent deaths, Mammoths freezing solid while chewing grass, whole mountains moving miles from where they first formed in a matter of days or weeks. The Earth wobbeling on its axis etc. Kind of like science fiction but then you know what they say: The truth is stranger than fiction.