Creationism

Famousdebater: And creationists don't a time machine either. They have a book that was written over a long time period by many people (riddled with fallacies and inaccuracies) with little - no evidence of proof in support of it.
They also form their own model and use science to attempt to support it.
Yes, mainstream scientists cannot observe these events, a posteriori, but they can conclude them using evidence and proof.
That requires assumptions about the past.
We can't see gravity. Does that mean that gravity doesn't exist? There is pretty much no speculation over the existence of gravity yet we cannot physically observe gravity itself (only demonstration of things that help to prove gravity). The same logic applies to concepts such as evolution.
Go to a bridge and jump off to see what happens. It isn't seeing it that is the issue, it is the unrepeatable past.
Creationists? Yes. Evolutionists? No. They don't have assumptions.
Uh, yes they do. They all make assumptions.
Fused telomeres and celomeres in the combination of two ape chromosomes in our second chromosome is basically what we've used to conclude evolution a fact beyond reasonable doubt.
That comes from the assumption that the similarities among organisms imply common ancestry.
At first, yes. That's because Darwin had to make a lot of assumptions based on observation of finches. This is because Darwin was alive long before the Human Genome Project. However, since then we have masses of genetic evidence filling in the gaps of the assumptions that Darwkin made (essentially proving his theory).
That demonstrates what I said. They are interpreting the observations to fit Darwinian evolution.

I am a Creationist. Science was never my strong suit (geopolitics is, among other things), meaning I'm generally unqualified to argue for it. That's why I don't usually discuss it. But I'd just like to add my two cents to this conversation.
I would like to address the topic of similar genes in a diverse array of organisms, which is usually interpreted as evidence for common descent. The purpose of our DNA is to provide blueprints for the functions of the body. If the body needs to be a certain way to function, it will have a piece of DNA that causes that function to exist and take place. Most organisms need to breathe in oxygen, meaning that most will have genes that allow for aerobic respiration. It doesn't mean that all the organisms with that gene come from the same source. An intelligent creator may've designed a large array of life forms with similar design features, which would explain why many genes are shared. The idea of "vestigial DNA" is an argument from ignorance; it assumes that, since a useful purpose for some gene is unknown, that such a purpose will never be found.

I would like to add that, at least to some degree, both Creation and Evolution are unfalsifiable. For instance, it's obviously true that, under all the right conditions, a life form could come into being without a designer. It's also true that, assuming that the proper resources and knowledge are present, one could intelligently design a life form.

Famousdebater: BioHazard is correct on bias playing a role in science. Otherwise one would have to redevelop a theory from every single piece of evidence that supports it. (Suggesting that every last aspect of Biology could be used individually to prove evolution.)

On the article I showed you, which had citations to many secular publications, directly refuted chromosome 2 as being evidence for evolution. Evolutionists made a prediction about what should appear in in the genome according to evolution, and this prediction was not supported.

I'm not suggesting that this completely debunks evolution. However, it shows the commonly "less talked of" misfires by evolutionists/secular astronomers.

Random Stranger: I'll try to respond to all of these posts tomorrow. There are too many things for me to respond to for me to do this now.

Bi0Hazard: They also form their own model and use science to attempt to support it.

Creationism is the literal believe in Genesis 1-3 and is a belief held by Biblical fundamentalists. Abilities such as divine fiat have absolutely no scientific backing to them. Nor does the creationist belief that the universe is 6000 - 10,000 years old hold any scientific merit.

Gravity, evolution, the inflation cosmological model, etc. all have immense scientific backing and evidence making the first 2 scientific facts and the third pretty much a fact.

Uh, yes they do. They all make assumptions.

Not really. Yeah sure, they make the assumption that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent being that we cannot see, who's existence is only accredited by books written centuries ago doesn't exist. But that isn't much of an assumption if you ask me.

That comes from the assumption that the similarities among organisms imply common ancestry.

Nope. This isn't similarity. This is fusion. These aren't two ape-like chromosomes they ARE two ape chromosomes. We know for a fact that they are fused. Base pairs on the ends of each chromosome are unique to that chromosome; if you find these unique base pairs, you then know which chromosome you have, similar to how a fingerprint identifies a human or how we can work out who committed a crime from a hair or blood sample. We found the base pairs that match ancestral ape chromosomes on our 2nd chromosome [ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC52649/] So, when you look at our 2nd chromosome, you see that our genetics have uniquely identifying remnants from our ape ancestors; we're genetically made from two fused ape chromosomes. It is a fact that they are fused.

That demonstrates what I said. They are interpreting the observations to fit Darwinian evolution.

Why would they do that? There were many,many models of evolution before we found genetic evidence. In fact, before this Darwinian evolution wasn't taught (at least not exclusively). The point is that AFTER this genetic evidence was discovered we realized that it coincided with Darwin's theory of evolution as opposed to someone like Lamark.

We aren't interpreting observations to fit Darwinian evolution. The evidence is merely helping to support it (which is why we are now taught Darwinian evolution as a fact).

Dassault Papillon: An intelligent creator may've designed a large array of life forms with similar design features, which would explain why many genes are shared.

True. That argument can be used to negate genetic similarity, however there is a lot of genetic evidence in support of evolution that isn't just similarity. It's actual fusion of chromosomes that isn't just similar - it's exact. Our chromosome 2 isn't just similar to two ape chromosomes. It is two ape chromosomes. If we didn't know what a human chromosome 2 was and then we found samples of one, we'd think that it was 2 ape chromosomes that had somehow combined because they are identical and have been fused over time. Apes have more chromosomes than us. That is because over time these two chromosomes have fused together. And we know there is fusion because all single chromosomes have one centromere but in chromosome 2 there is a second. Telomeres are usually found on the outside but in our chromosome 2 they are found on the inside too.

Random Stranger: BioHazard is correct on bias playing a role in science. Otherwise one would have to redevelop a theory from every single piece of evidence that supports it. (Suggesting that every last aspect of Biology could be used individually to prove evolution.)

Theories are constantly changing. Darwin's theory of evolution wasn't originally perfect. He knew nothing about genetics, DNA, chromosomes, fusion, etc. Yet Darwin's observation were correct and the evidence we now have supports and explains his observations. There are new theories all of the time. And if they're proven to be correct then they are used, if they are disproven then they are considered to be incorrect. It's as simple as that. There is no bias. One piece of evidence can be used to create new theories, support current theories, modify current theories, etc. There's no bias. If a piece of evidence doesn't support something then it won't be used to support that.

On the article I showed you, which had citations to many secular publications, directly refuted chromosome 2 as being evidence for evolution. Evolutionists made a prediction about what should appear in in the genome according to evolution, and this prediction was not supported.

I'll respond to this one in a bit because the article is quite lengthy and in order for me to thoroughly refute it I'll have to read through it all and respond to all key points which I don't currently have time to do.

Famousdebater: Creationism is the literal believe in Genesis 1-3 and is a belief held by Biblical fundamentalists. Abilities such as divine fiat have absolutely no scientific backing to them. Nor does the creationist belief that the universe is 6000 - 10,000 years old hold any scientific merit.
You can't disprove it. A creationist can say that the buried fossils were the result of a worldwide flood thousands of years ago.
Gravity, evolution, the inflation cosmological model, etc. all have immense scientific backing and evidence making the first 2 scientific facts and the third pretty much a fact.
Evolution and the inflation cosmological model are MODELS, not facts.
Not really. Yeah sure, they make the assumption that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent being that we cannot see, who's existence is only accredited by books written centuries ago doesn't exist. But that isn't much of an assumption if you ask me.
Yes, the evolution model is based on many assumptions. It doesn't assume that God doesn't exist.
Nope. This isn't similarity. This is fusion. These aren't two ape-like chromosomes they ARE two ape chromosomes. We know for a fact that they are fused.
Pointing this out as evidence for common descent is interpretation and assumption. Creationists can interpret it to be a common designer.
Why would they do that?
Largely because of the rise of naturalism and the metaphysics of Darwin's theory satisfied it. There was a cultural and philosophical change.
We aren't interpreting observations to fit Darwinian evolution. The evidence is merely helping to support it (which is why we are now taught Darwinian evolution as a fact).
Evidence is fitted into the evolutionary model. It is no different if you claim evidence is helping to support it since all of mainstream science today operates in a framework of the Darwin evolutionary model.
And if they're proven to be correct then they are used, if they are disproven then they are considered to be incorrect. It's as simple as that. There is no bias.
Unfortunately, it isn't that way. Both evolution and creationism are based on prehistorical assumptions with elements of faith.
I'll respond to this one in a bit because the article is quite lengthy and in order for me to thoroughly refute it I'll have to read through it all and respond to all key points which I don't currently have time to do.
This right here supports the point I made. You know you will attempt to refute it regardless of the amount of evidence it provides. It is your philosophy, you won't change your views since you assume what you currently accept is true.

Bi0Hazard: You can't disprove it. A creationist can say that the buried fossils were the result of a worldwide flood thousands of years ago.

Actually you can, to a reasonable degree anyway. It's like me saying that I'm a giant ant with human arms and hands and a significantly more advanced brain than any human. You don't know me so you cannot disprove the argument. But common sense and evidence we have about the likelihood of these mutations, brain development and radio wave wavelength tell us that this is almost certainly untrue. The same applies to this. If I saw a fossil I could say that it was beamed down by aliens 5 billion years ago. Creationism is no more valid than me saying that. An evolutionary response, however, look at facts and evidence and draws logical conclusions based on this - making it much more plausible (ie. like me telling you that I'm a human who lives in the London Borough of Harrow in England).

Evidence is fitted into the evolutionary model. It is no different if you claim evidence is helping to support it since all of mainstream science today operates in a framework of the Darwin evolutionary model.

Sure, we use evidence to fit the model. But this evidence is used for many,many different theories. It's narrow minded to assume that all scientists are doing is finding evidence and using that to support one model. They aren't just finding random, irrelevant facts and saying that this contributes to evolution. If they say they've found evidence in support of evolution, the chances are that this is legitimate evidence in support of it.

Unfortunately, it isn't that way. Both evolution and creationism are based on prehistorical assumptions with elements of faith.

You've yet to name one (potentially illogical) assumption that evolutionists make in regards to evolution. They have to assume certain things like assuming that we aren't made by a designer who is planting false evidence to test us and things like that because then we can't believe in anything. But those are logical assumptions to make. Other than assuming that things that cannot be proven or disproven aren't to be considered, evolutionists make no assumptions - definitely no illogical ones like creationists who ignore all evidence in support of the age of the Earth (which I haven't heard any body who knows anything about universe say before) like it's age being thousands of years old as opposed to billions with is axiomatically true.

You know you will attempt to refute it regardless of the amount of evidence it provides. It is your philosophy, you won't change your views since you assume what you currently accept is true.

I'm more than willing to change my views on debatable subjects such as moral philosophy and current affairs. I'm not going to change my views on things like evolution, the existence of gravity, the fact that the Earth is not flat; that the Earth orbits the barycenter of the universe and in doing so it orbits the Sun.

These are facts. In the same way you can't change your view that 2+2=4 I can't change my view that evolution is not a fact because both 2+2 and evolution are equally true in my opinion.

Famousdebater: It's like me saying that I'm a giant ant with human arms and hands and a significantly more advanced brain than any human. You don't know me so you cannot disprove the argument. But common sense and evidence we have about the likelihood of these mutations, brain development and radio wave wavelength tell us that this is almost certainly untrue.
This is untrue in the evolutionist framework of prehistory. Remember, the age of the earth and what happened is what has already happened, so you can't demonstrate it, just rely on assumptions and a framework.
The same applies to this. If I saw a fossil I could say that it was beamed down by aliens 5 billion years ago. Creationism is no more valid than me saying that. An evolutionary response, however, look at facts and evidence and draws logical conclusions based on this - making it much more plausible (ie. like me telling you that I'm a human who lives in the London Borough of Harrow in England).
Sure, you can say they draw "reasonable" and "logical" conclusions, but only in the context of their framework.
Sure, we use evidence to fit the model.
You interpret observations and data to fit the model. This "evidence" you talk about is just data and observations, but it isn't "evidence" of anything, there has to be a model of some sort formed to interpret the data. Darwinian evolution isn't some pre-existing inherent value of science where all data collected is the "evidence" of the Darwin model. It was formed to interpret the data and observations.
It's narrow minded to assume that all scientists are doing is finding evidence and using that to support one model.
That is how it is with mainstream science.
They aren't just finding random, irrelevant facts and saying that this contributes to evolution.
Not "irrelevant" observations, but they do use data and observations to contribute to evolution.
If they say they've found evidence in support of evolution, the chances are that this is legitimate evidence in support of it.
"Evidence" is really data and observations in science that are interpreted into the Darwinian evolution model.
You've yet to name one (potentially illogical) assumption that evolutionists make in regards to evolution.
You already know what they are. Just look at the evolutionary model. Here are six:
1. Bacteria, Viruses, plants, and animals are all interrelated.
2. Single-celled organisms gave rise to multi-cell organisms.
3. Invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates.
4. Similarities in species imply common ancestry.
5. Mutation and selection will gradually lead to more complex life forms.
6. Uniformitarianism
These are facts. In the same way you can't change your view that 2+2=4 I can't change my view that evolution is not a fact because both 2+2 and evolution are equally true in my opinion.
Evolution is not a fact at all though (especially not in the same way as 2+2=4). We just simply can't know how the prehistory of the earth went out. Though, I see what you mean. It isn't any different with others (including me) on subjects they hold to the strongest.

I am not saying that this is a bad thing, if you accept Darwinian Evolution, then great. However, it is still a model, and that is how historical science plays out.

Evolutionists and creationists both are faced with the same data. There is no "discovering evidence for evolution (inherent to darwinism)" or "evidence for creationism." The data and observations are fit into the model. There may be some inconsistencies with the model and data, which can either be fixed somehow or by abandoning the model.

Bi0Hazard: I think the burdens are quite unfair here since you haven't presented evidence in support of creationism. Though I'll still defend evolution.

This is untrue in the evolutionist framework of prehistory. Remember, the age of the earth and what happened is what has already happened, so you can't demonstrate it, just rely on assumptions and a framework.

How can you dispute the age of the Earth? We can date the rock. We use radiometric dating systems to date meteorites. It's one thing not believing in evolution, but that age of the Earth is a step too far. It is all "consistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples."

You interpret observations and data to fit the model. This "evidence" you talk about is just data and observations, but it isn't "evidence" of anything, there has to be a model of some sort formed to interpret the data. Darwinian evolution isn't some pre-existing inherent value of science where all data collected is the "evidence" of the Darwin model. It was formed to interpret the data and observations.

The issue is simple. Darwin came up with the theory of evolution as we know it today in its simplest form. Since then we've found and collected data and physical evidence as well as genetic which proves beyond reasonable doubt that we have evolved as well as plants and other animals. This evidence is being used in support of other theories too but when somebody working in the field of evolutionary biology sees something that completely coincides with the theory to the extent that it almost certainly does relate to the theory then they're obviously going to use that in support of the theory. Why wouldn't they? This is evidence in support of the theory that they've found.

That is how it is with mainstream science.

Actually that's not how it is with mainstream science in the slightest. For example, fossil evidence isn't solely used to prove that we've evolved, it's also used to our lifestyles, diet, way of life, bacterial resistance, ways of combating infection, etc.

Not "irrelevant" observations, but they do use data and observations to contribute to evolution.

Of course they do. If they aren't irrelevant observation then they are, logically, relevant observations. It would be stupid of them to just ignore relevant observations regarding evolution.

"Evidence" is really data and observations in science that are interpreted into the Darwinian evolution model.

Yes evidence is "data and observations". But no, evidence isn't interpreted into the model. Evidence is used to validate and prove that the model is a fact - which the evidence has now been sufficient enough for the model to conclude.

1. Bacteria, Viruses, plants, and animals are all interrelated.

Well we don't assume that viruses are interrelated with animals or plants because they aren't living and aren't really related to evolution (at least not macro-evolution). As for animals and plants, they share the same basic gene mechanism - ie. an animal enzyme works perfectly in a plant and a gene for luciferase.

Bacteria is more distantly related because the evolutionary pathway from bacteria to animal and plant are over a longer period of time. But we do have structural similarities which we can see such as us both having a nucleus, us both having a flagella for locomotion. We also have DNA, cytoplasm, ribosomes, a plasma membrane, etc. So there is no assumption regarding this your first supposed assumption.

2. Single-celled organisms gave rise to multi-cell organisms.

Nope. In volcovines we can observe some single cell and some multicellular organisms. This is due to a relatively recent (in terms of evolutionary scaling) evolution of the volcovine. In these volcovines we can see and observe genome sequencing as well as being able to uncover genes that regulate cell division as well as cell growth. This has now allowed us to understand how the volcovine evolved from single celled to multicellular. Whilst we don't know if humans evolved the same way that the volcovine did, we do know that it is possible and we know that it is now incredibly likely for it to have occurred in other organism. Bacterial similarity and inherited fusions also makes this basically a fact.

3. Invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates.

We know that they evolved due to fossil and genetic evidence. We know that they came from water to land. We can observe that the earliest vertebrates were fish that developed jaws via a mutation that then resulted in those with jaws having a higher chance of survival and so over time the jaw mutation was in most fish. Those that evolved lungs could live on land which was an essential evolutionary jump for both invertebrates and life outside of water. The evolutionary pathway continues onwards. The point is that we can observe fossils to show this gradual change and we can date these fossils and all the time periods are in logical orders and there aren't oddities or massive jumps in small time periods.

4. Similarities in species imply common ancestry.

That assumption can be made, however there is superior genetic evidence now meaning that anybody that uses that assumption doesn't have a complete understanding of evolution. Those that do are aware that we don't just have similarity in genetics. Parts of our genetic makeup as well as our chromosomes two are from fused additional chromosomes that we have from our common ancestor. This isn't the question of similarity. These are things that we have from them that are exactly the same.

It's like if you put me in a cloning machine and then dressed my clone different, gave him a different hair style and dyed his hair, etc. At the core of things, if you looked into the clone in terms of genetics you'd be able to tell that we were the same. So the same applies to the common ancestor, monkeys, apes, etc. They may not look like us but when you look at the genetics you know.

The same also applies to family. If there were 5 people in a room who all looked completely different but two were related (as in brother and sister) we could do genetic testing to conclude which were related. The same process applies with different species and humans.

5. Mutation and selection will gradually lead to more complex life forms.

Come on, this is basic. Mutation doesn't always lead to more complex life forms. In fact, the majority of mutations are bad which is why animals evolving can take years because the mutation will only grow within an animal species if that mutation helps that animal in its survival. But when a mutation occurs (by chance) that is good, then that animal is obviously going to survive more easily. And if that reproduces, then its offspring may inherit this good mutation and as its offspring reproduce the mutation is passed down throughout the species and gradually this good mutation will spread throughout the species and the ones without the mutation will die off more easily until the majority of the species has this mutation.

The mutation doesn't always lead to more complex life forms but it does lead to improved life forms (at least to their current conditions). This isn't even an assumption. It's just logic.

6. Uniformitarianism

This isn't really a necessary assumption to be made. But even so, basic uniformitarianism in regards to the Earth is pretty much proven. We can look at fossils and adaptions to ways in which animals and humans have behaved and evolved and seen that certain animals wouldn't have survived or operated in certain time periods, etc. We can back up the evolutionary process to a woolly mammoth with evidence for the ice age for example.

Evolution is not a fact at all though (especially not in the same way as 2+2=4).

Evolution is a fact. True, not in the same way as 2+2=4, but I was using that analogy just to show how I can't change my mind on something like that.

There may be some inconsistencies

If inconsistencies do arise that are so clear that they negate evolution, then I may have to reconsider. But at this period in time these inconsistencies do not exist and so I won't change my mind based on the possibility of major inconsistencies arising with a model that is a fact (which is conceded by most scientists).

Famousdebater: I imagine that chromosomes serve a vital purpose; that two similar species would share a chromosome doesn't seem all that unreasonable.
(Again, I'm not very knowledgeable in biology or any of the other sciences, so I apologise if I'm not getting what you're trying to say.)

Dassault Papillon: They don't share a chromosome. In our body our second chromosome is made of two fused chromosomes. If we look at the genetic make up of animals such as apes or monkeys we can see that they have more chromosomes than us. If we look at the extra chromosomes that they have, they are exactly the same as the two halves of our second chromosome which we can biologically observe as being two fused chromosomes.

Famousdebater: You've yet to debunk my paper regarding the second chromosome.

Random Stranger: Oh yeah, thanks for the reminder. I'll just refute the part that you quoted earlier because I don't have time to go through the entire paper.

Random Stranger: Based on the predicted model, thousands of intact motifs in tandem should exist... For the TTAGGG repeat to the left of the fusion site, less than 35 motifs exist, a normal human telomere would typically have 1667 to 2500.6 For the CCCTAA reverse complement sequence, to the right of the fusion site, less than 150 telomere motifs can be found. Another problem with these two motifs, that we document in our companion research paper, is that their occurrences are found scattered throughout both sides of the fusion site where they would not be expected. In other words, both the forward and reverse complement of the telomere motif populate both sides of the fusion site. The only evolutionary research group to seriously analyze the actual fusion site DNA sequence data in detail were confounded by the results which showed a lack of evidence for fusion...

The study lacks a fundamental knowledge on genetics. The fact that the telomere motif appears on both of the sides is agreeing that it was a telomere to telomere fusion.

Here's a peer reviewed study below that shows the exact ape base pairs on our second chromosome, so you can claim they secular sources, but if they didn't address this source and they made the erroneous claim that "the only evolutionary research group...showed lack of evidence for fusion" they are wrong.

Read this and tell me what I'm missing:

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/22/6/1036.full

Famousdebater: I think the burdens are quite unfair here since you haven't presented evidence in support of creationism. Though I'll still defend evolution.
That isn't my point, and I don't support creationism.
How can you dispute the age of the Earth?
We don't know the age of the earth.
We can date the rock.
Dating rocks lies on certain assumptions made. You can't possibly know how old something really is, you have to make certain assumptions. Isotopes are believed to have decayed at consistent rates overtime.
The issue is simple. Darwin came up with the theory of evolution as we know it today in its simplest form. Since then we've found and collected data and physical evidence as well as genetic which proves beyond reasonable doubt that we have evolved as well as plants and other animals.
Again, they are fitting the observations and data into the model.
This evidence is being used in support of other theories too but when somebody working in the field of evolutionary biology sees something that completely coincides with the theory to the extent that it almost certainly does relate to the theory then they're obviously going to use that in support of the theory. Why wouldn't they? This is evidence in support of the theory that they've found.
The model will make predictions and may find data that fits it, I believe that is what you mean by "evidence".
Actually that's not how it is with mainstream science in the slightest.
Yes, as you know, the vast majority of scientists accept the same model. All the observations and data are put into it.
As for animals and plants, they share the same basic gene mechanism - ie. an animal enzyme works perfectly in a plant and a gene for luciferase.

Bacteria is more distantly related because the evolutionary pathway from bacteria to animal and plant are over a longer period of time. But we do have structural similarities which we can see such as us both having a nucleus, us both having a flagella for locomotion. We also have DNA, cytoplasm, ribosomes, a plasma membrane, etc. So there is no assumption regarding this your first supposed assumption.

Ok, but this doesn't demonstrate that it isn't an assumption.
Nope. In volcovines we can observe some single cell and some multicellular organisms. This is due to a relatively recent (in terms of evolutionary scaling) evolution of the volcovine.
You are assuming it right there.
We know that they evolved due to fossil and genetic evidence.
Wouldn't you agree that you have to make assumptions regarding this to leap to the conclusion that the data implies that invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates?
Nevertheless, that invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates is assumed by the evolutionary model.
The evolutionary pathway continues onwards. The point is that we can observe fossils to show this gradual change and we can date these fossils and all the time periods are in logical orders and there aren't oddities or massive jumps in small time periods.
Using the fossil record is not very great for evolution. Darwinian evolution predicts that fossils would represent gradual change with datings of less complex species being older and vice versa. The fossil record has relatively little transitional forms that could fit the prediction of gradual evolution in the Evolution model.
That assumption can be made, however there is superior genetic evidence now meaning that anybody that uses that assumption doesn't have a complete understanding of evolution.
That assumption is made in Darwinian evolution, so people who use that assumption certainly understand evolution.
Those that do are aware that we don't just have similarity in genetics. Parts of our genetic makeup as well as our chromosomes two are from fused additional chromosomes that we have from our common ancestor.
Again, that is an assumption.
The mutation doesn't always lead to more complex life forms but it does lead to improved life forms (at least to their current conditions). This isn't even an assumption. It's just logic.
It is assumed by the Darwinian evolution model. Mutations and selection are not viable mechanisms for producing increased information and specified complexity in life forms.
But even so, basic uniformitarianism in regards to the Earth is pretty much proven.
It can't possibly be, we weren't in the past to see how lands were all formed. It is assumed, and uniformitarianism makes assumptions about the past.
Evolution is a fact.
It is a model, not a fact. It simply can not be proven.
If inconsistencies do arise that are so clear that they negate evolution, then I may have to reconsider. But at this period in time these inconsistencies do not exist and so I won't change my mind based on the possibility of major inconsistencies arising with a model that is a fact (which is conceded by most scientists).
Sounds good for the model you accept.

I think the issue is that you are thinking of "assumptions" as negative to scientific understanding. Since you accept evolution without a doubt, you don't accept any negative point about it. Since you think of assumptions as impeding the scientific progress, you deny that it makes any.

Bi0Hazard: Okay, I literally just responded to your post, clicked add reply and apparently I was logged out so none of it saved. I don't know if you get auto logged out if you wait a certain time period on the same page or something like that but I wrong quite a lengthy response.

I'll respond to this tomorrow but this isn't the first the time that this has happened to me (on laptop).

Famousdebater: but I wrong quite a lengthy response.

*wrote