I’ll be the first to admit I’m not steeped in the physical or life sciences, or science in general for that matter, but I do enjoy learning what I’m capable of through good discussion.
Do you?
Despite this admission, you nevertheless started a thread thusly:
"How long will it take for academia's and evolutionists to admit that Creation is the likely option if no such route is found, 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, never?"
and comment later in the same thread:
"The brick wall... no evidence (transitional fossils)... that's the limit right now."
And despite being asked more than once to discuss fossils and fossilization such that the certainty of your assertion was justified, you could offer nothing.
Having said that, it seems to me that opponent “default responses” (I’m sure there are more) concerning Creation vs. Evolution are centered on two basic premises:
a) If you are a Creationist you are automatically thought to be a YEC, you believe the Bible is 100% accurate and take everything in it literally, you are anti-science, and you are against any form of evolutionary process because you think it takes God out of the picture.
This is often the default since the majority of the creationists on these forums do, in fact, fit that bill. I am learning, sadly, that we can add 'are flat earthers' to that list.
It is also the case that when an anti-evolutionist indicates that they are not YEC, they are no longer thought of as a YEC. The converse is not true, however - when an evolutionist indicates that they are Christian, their faith is denigrated or dismissed.
b) If you are an Evolutionist you of course believe in a very old earth based on our timescale, you think the Bible is irrelevant (even inaccurate), science trumps everything (whether you want to admit it or not, similar to a religion in that you have faith in it whether it’s assumptions are proven or not), you are against any form of Creation because it puts God in the picture above science.
I do see that from most creationists. It seems to be how they deal with the fact that not everyone is in lock-step with them.
In other words, whichever camp you’re in this most likely is the perception of you from the other side. So, if you like, whatever camp you are in, pick any listed “default assumption” that you think does not accurately reflect your view and elaborate on it.
Should be interesting.
If you are an Evolutionist you of course believe in a very old earth based on our timescale
Yes, because there is voluminous evidence that this is so.
you think the Bible is irrelevant (even inaccurate)
When it comes to scientific issues, yes. Why WOULD a collection of stories from a pre-industrial, pre-technological (compared to the last 100 year, at least) civilization be considered insightful or relevant or accurate when discussing, say, molecular biology?
science trumps everything (whether you want to admit it or not, similar to a religion in that you have faith in it whether it’s assumptions are proven or not)
Science, as such, trumps that which relies entirely on the say-so of ancient peoples, when the two are in conflict, regarding issues of nature. I know of no example wherein this is not the case.
The word "assumption" is often employed by the religious or other anti-science types as a way of making scientific concepts/facts seem less reasonable or reliable. Such folk, however, studiously seem to ignore the fact that they rely on assumptions as well - or they will declare their assumptions "true".
Let us consider one example of an assumption in science, not necessarily related to the topic of this forum -
Gravity and flight (atmospheric and space).
When engineers design aircraft or spacecraft, they are inherently assuming that gravity is a thing, and that how it operates is reasonably well understood. They also assume (space flight) that gravity works the same way in deep space as it does on earth. Regarding aircraft, if gravity was not a thing, then there should be no need for such craft to produce lift. Regarding spacecraft, if gravity were not a thing, then trajectory calculations would be irrelevant and useless, 'gravity slingshots' would not work, and calculations on escape velocity would not be needed, etc.
Yet, no aircraft or spacecraft engineer re-demonstrates gravity before designing their craft - they simply assume it. They ASSUME that what we know about gravity is legitimate.
Assumptions like this are, in effect, recognition of what is known. Not the 'mere guesses' the anti-science types wish to imply.
What are the assumptions of creationists? Are they NOT that the bible is at least 90% accurate and true (most of your creationist organizations place it at 100% cover to cover - I am throwing out 90% to cover the Old Earth creationists)?
Presupposition are another matter. Presuppositions are things we take as a given despite the fact that they cannot be proven or known to be true. This is what I think creationists are often really referring to when they derisively write 'assumptions.'
A slimmed-down depiction of the presuppositions of scientists is that the universe is real, and it can be generally understood via investigation using our senses, which are generally reliable. Something like that.
The presuppositions of the creationist (esp. the YEC), in my experience, seem to be - the bible is true and correct no matter what.
One side's presuppositions seem a bit more sensible and reasonable to me.
you are against any form of Creation because it puts God in the picture above science.
Hmmm... Nope. I am not "against" creation, just as I am not "against" Santa. I am against taking the stories of an ancient people and presenting them as history, rather than as moral tales (of often questionable morality), etc. I am against the double standards that most creationists definitely apply when it comes to accepting something as factual or true - the old 'the bible says it, I believe it, thats that!' mentality.
