I highly doubt he's even studied it anyway.
I think he's confusing theoretical possibilities with assumptions, but the difference is when a scientist is proven wrong. He accepts it, the religious have no proof and demand others see their view as true.

Your getting ahead of me here.... I'm still at the stage of examining the mainstream scientific assumptions about evolution. And why it is considered to be true on such a scale when it is so hugely reliant on these assumptions?

Can you specify what 'assumptions' you're talking about?

AKA: You're pulling it out of your ass.

Because the evidence has been examined and evolution is the only reasonable theory that doesn't run afoul of it. It shows up in DNA, in fossil, there's geological records that help explain the distribution and subsequent separation of subspecies.

OTOH, with creationism, you have a book backing it up. That book was the result of picking and choosing which books to include in the anthology, and is known to contain things that never happened.

The point is, that you need to put up or shut up. If you don't have credible evidence to support creationism, then you aren't in a position to claim that creationism is real.

The reality is that creationism versus evolution was debated in the scientific community in the past and all of the evidence came out in favor of evolutionism. The only debate going on now is about which theory of evolution is the correct one. As I've mentioned before even the Catholic Church recognizes that evolution is real.And they're not exactly the most progressive sect of Christianity.

I don't like this science. You've taken a stance of "true until proven false". Failure to disprove is not proof of the alternative, nor (in itself) a reliable indication. I assume there was a level of irony in your post, as I think you and I both appreciate that the point that it really is just a proof that we haven't proved it.

Errr,,, what isn't and assumption?? ... What i mean is, whatever i hear, read or watch about Evolution, it's all assumptions - some of them very clever, but assumptions none the less.

Again, like what?

i am sensing some turtle defense on "the religious side" :)

The evidence only explains what it is 'assumed' to explain - this is the whole point of my question! Just once, i would like to see something that has no human assumption attached to it.

You're staying abstract. I think your interlocutors would like you to give a practical exemple (and maybe also an exemple of the opposite - some scientific knowledge that you don't consider to be a "mere assumption").

A 3 party system?

Anyways, if you're going to lecture me about living where there's a different system, then you really should take your own advice. We have more than just 2 parties here and even if you ignore the tiny ones, you still have plenty of diversity within the parties.

Like I said earlier, if you're going to make this kind of absurd claim, you should at least bother to understand our system. The GOP alone is made up of what are really 3 different parties, and the Democrats are made up of at least as many. The fact that they're all under the same name, does not mean that there isn't diversity there.

When we took the parties out of the nomination process, we wound up with no fewer than 11 different parties on the ballot that first election. Previously, they would all have been either GOP or Democratic, same exact range of choices.
So, I take it every time you see a door, you walk up to it, turn the knob and open it, just to make sure that it's actually a door.

Says the Creationist.

Alanis Morissette could learn a thing or two from this guy...

And there's absolutely zero, zilch, 0, nada evidence for religion. Troll.